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 | HOYLE Jacob C. | - | - | 1% | 5% | 20% | 41% | 34% |
| 2 | RODNEY Adam R. | - | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 39% | 19% |
| 3 | HADZIC Alen | - | - | 2% | 9% | 27% | 39% | 23% |
| 3 | ZHANG Joshua | 4% | 17% | 32% | 30% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 5 | SMITH Dwight | 4% | 21% | 35% | 27% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 6 | CANAUX Gabriel A. | - | 1% | 7% | 21% | 34% | 28% | 9% |
| 7 | KAULL James T. | - | 1% | 4% | 16% | 33% | 33% | 13% |
| 8 | NOLLNER Dylan | - | 4% | 14% | 29% | 31% | 18% | 4% |
| 9 | CULPEPPER John (JR) R. | - | 1% | 6% | 19% | 34% | 30% | 10% |
| 10 | PRYOR Jason A. | - | 1% | 7% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 7% |
| 11 | DUNCAN Corwin | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 33% | 29% | 10% |
| 12 | CARPENTER Liam | 1% | 5% | 18% | 31% | 29% | 14% | 2% |
| 13 | YOO Justin H. | - | 1% | 8% | 22% | 33% | 27% | 9% |
| 14 | KRAFT Dennis A. | - | - | 3% | 13% | 31% | 36% | 16% |
| 15 | VAYSBERG Nathan | - | 3% | 14% | 29% | 32% | 17% | 4% |
| 16 | JOHNSON Wesley (Wes) R. | - | 3% | 14% | 30% | 33% | 17% | 3% |
| 17 | WHITE Sean | - | - | 2% | 10% | 28% | 39% | 21% |
| 18 | VERMEULE Spencer | 1% | 5% | 18% | 32% | 29% | 13% | 2% |
| 18 | SCHUMACHER Cooper (Shoey) J. | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 34% | 29% | 10% |
| 20 | JONES Simon A. | 4% | 19% | 33% | 28% | 13% | 3% | - |
| 21 | THOMPSON Soren | - | - | 4% | 14% | 31% | 35% | 16% |
| 22 | TSINIS Alexander E. | - | 2% | 10% | 25% | 33% | 23% | 6% |
| 23 | CANDREVA Hunter R. | 2% | 12% | 29% | 33% | 19% | 5% | 1% |
| 24 | BEKKER Samuel | - | 4% | 15% | 29% | 31% | 17% | 4% |
| 25 | BRATTON Benjamin E. | - | 1% | 5% | 17% | 33% | 32% | 13% |
| 26 | CARNAHAN Garrett M. | - | 2% | 9% | 24% | 34% | 25% | 7% |
| 27 | COMES Matthew J. | - | 3% | 12% | 27% | 33% | 20% | 5% |
| 28 | NORTH Gary S. | 2% | 11% | 26% | 32% | 21% | 7% | 1% |
| 29 | NGUYEN Ethan D. | 7% | 28% | 38% | 21% | 5% | - | |
| 30 | ZHU Wilson | 3% | 14% | 28% | 31% | 18% | 6% | 1% |
| 31 | MACZIK Adam W. | 1% | 5% | 18% | 32% | 29% | 13% | 2% |
| 32 | ZACHARAKIS Darius K. | 2% | 12% | 29% | 32% | 18% | 5% | 1% |
| 33 | THEIN-SANDLER Adrien (Adi) M. | - | - | 3% | 13% | 30% | 36% | 18% |
| 34 | KOCH Samuel | - | 2% | 9% | 26% | 35% | 22% | 5% |
| 35 | SHIFRON Daniel A. | 3% | 14% | 31% | 32% | 16% | 4% | - |
| 36 | SHINHOLSTER Michael J. | 1% | 7% | 21% | 32% | 27% | 11% | 2% |
| 37 | RAMIREZ Yeisser | 1% | 7% | 25% | 39% | 25% | 5% | |
| 38 | YERGLER Jonathan A. | 2% | 14% | 33% | 34% | 15% | 2% | |
| 39 | VOLKMANN Daniel R. | - | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 36% | 15% |
| 40 | SPITERI Gareth J. | 1% | 6% | 20% | 31% | 27% | 12% | 2% |
| 41 | LARSEN Samuel F. | - | 1% | 7% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 7% |
| 42 | SZAPARY Tristan B. | - | 1% | 8% | 22% | 34% | 27% | 9% |
| 43 | TOLKACHEV Denis | 1% | 7% | 21% | 33% | 27% | 10% | 1% |
| 44 | RAYLE Evan K. | 1% | 9% | 24% | 33% | 24% | 9% | 1% |
| 45 | HURME Tommi K. | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 35% | 22% | 5% |
| 46 | SHERRILL Edward R. | - | - | 3% | 13% | 31% | 37% | 16% |
| 47 | MILAM Hugh | 1% | 7% | 22% | 32% | 26% | 10% | 2% |
| 48 | ZMYSLOWSKI Maciek A. | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 43% | 28% | |
| 49 | HANSEN Jonas B. | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 42% | 29% | |
| 50 | LOMBARDO Theodore (Teddy) | - | 5% | 20% | 37% | 30% | 8% | |
| 51 | MOORE Shomari A. | - | 4% | 18% | 35% | 32% | 10% | |
| 52 | CHENG Zachary K. | 1% | 6% | 20% | 32% | 28% | 12% | 2% |
| 53 | SANDERS Ian W. | - | 4% | 16% | 32% | 31% | 14% | 2% |
| 54 | FEINBERG Gabriel M. | 2% | 14% | 30% | 32% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 55 | DE GUZMAN Inaki P. | 10% | 30% | 34% | 19% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 56 | BOGERT James BRETT (Brett) | - | 3% | 14% | 29% | 32% | 18% | 4% |
| 57 | MARAKOV Allen B. | 2% | 11% | 27% | 33% | 21% | 7% | 1% |
| 58 | YU Colin | 1% | 8% | 22% | 32% | 25% | 10% | 1% |
| 59 | POST Jason | 1% | 6% | 18% | 31% | 29% | 14% | 3% |
| 60 | LEE Woosuk | 22% | 40% | 27% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 61 | CAMPBELL Daniel R. | 1% | 6% | 19% | 32% | 28% | 12% | 2% |
| 62 | ZHENG Hagen | 4% | 18% | 32% | 29% | 14% | 3% | - |
| 63 | HADDAD Justin R. | - | 1% | 8% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 7% |
| 64 | RUSSANOV Dennis | 6% | 23% | 35% | 25% | 9% | 2% | - |
| 65 | WEISS Lewis E. | - | 1% | 7% | 21% | 33% | 28% | 10% |
| 66 | ELASHRY Zeyad A. | - | 3% | 13% | 28% | 32% | 19% | 4% |
| 67 | GAIDAR Daniel B. | 1% | 8% | 22% | 32% | 25% | 10% | 2% |
| 68 | ZUCKER Noah L. | - | 3% | 14% | 29% | 32% | 17% | 4% |
| 68 | HILBERT Xavier | 1% | 5% | 19% | 32% | 28% | 13% | 2% |
| 70 | RA Jr. Daniel M. | 3% | 17% | 33% | 30% | 13% | 3% | - |
| 71 | FREIMAN Samuel (Sam) E. | 6% | 25% | 37% | 25% | 7% | 1% | |
| 72 | MANCINI Christopher M. | 10% | 29% | 34% | 20% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 72 | LEE Ryan | 2% | 13% | 28% | 32% | 19% | 6% | 1% |
| 74 | NOWAK Jakub P. | 4% | 17% | 31% | 29% | 15% | 4% | - |
| 75 | HOLTZ Donovan K. | 5% | 20% | 33% | 28% | 12% | 3% | - |
| 76 | KIM Derek D. | 7% | 28% | 36% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 77 | ELLIS Yehia S. | 6% | 22% | 34% | 26% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 78 | BISSINGER Michael P. | 1% | 6% | 21% | 33% | 27% | 11% | 1% |
| 78 | MERCHANT Reza H. | 1% | 9% | 24% | 33% | 23% | 8% | 1% |
| 80 | GANA Thomas A. | 12% | 32% | 33% | 17% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 81 | CUMMINGS Atticus C. | 3% | 16% | 30% | 30% | 16% | 5% | 1% |
| 82 | IVE Isaac L. | 7% | 24% | 34% | 24% | 9% | 2% | - |
| 83 | KANG Michael H. | 8% | 27% | 34% | 22% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 84 | LEIGH David A. | 13% | 34% | 34% | 16% | 3% | - | |
| 85 | TEPEDELENLIOGLU Mehmet | 2% | 12% | 27% | 32% | 20% | 7% | 1% |
| 86 | SHIN Joshua | 1% | 7% | 20% | 32% | 27% | 11% | 2% |
| 87 | DOLGONOS Mark | 4% | 20% | 33% | 28% | 12% | 3% | - |
| 88 | KUSHNERIK Ethan | 1% | 6% | 20% | 32% | 27% | 11% | 2% |
| 89 | SHUGART Henry R. | 3% | 14% | 30% | 31% | 17% | 4% | - |
| 90 | LAURON Sean M. | 1% | 9% | 25% | 33% | 23% | 8% | 1% |
| 91 | ZHANG Matthew | 14% | 33% | 32% | 16% | 4% | 1% | - |
| 92 | MALYSZ Anthony J. | 5% | 19% | 32% | 28% | 13% | 3% | - |
| 93 | CHMUT Anton | 1% | 5% | 18% | 32% | 29% | 13% | 2% |
| 93 | MOOSEKIAN Stafford | 7% | 24% | 34% | 24% | 9% | 2% | - |
| 93 | KAMBESELES Peter G. | 4% | 19% | 32% | 28% | 13% | 3% | - |
| 96 | FRANK Timmy | 2% | 10% | 24% | 32% | 23% | 8% | 1% |
| 97 | FULLERTON Houston T. | 10% | 29% | 34% | 20% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 98 | WHITE Khristopher E. | 4% | 17% | 31% | 29% | 15% | 4% | - |
| 99 | SAITOC Tudor | 2% | 12% | 28% | 32% | 20% | 6% | 1% |
| 100 | COX Matthew T. | 5% | 20% | 33% | 27% | 12% | 3% | - |
| 101 | LEE Andrew O. | 3% | 16% | 31% | 30% | 16% | 4% | - |
| 102 | SANTOS Cameron A. | - | 5% | 19% | 34% | 29% | 12% | 2% |
| 103 | DAO Matthew M. | 7% | 24% | 34% | 25% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 103 | LEE Timothy S. | 5% | 20% | 34% | 27% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 105 | BRADFORD Jack M. | 7% | 24% | 33% | 24% | 9% | 2% | - |
| 105 | MUN Michael K. | 10% | 30% | 35% | 19% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 107 | KIMATIAN Harrison J. | - | 4% | 17% | 31% | 30% | 15% | 3% |
| 108 | WALKER IV Weymouth D. | 17% | 36% | 31% | 13% | 3% | - | - |
| 109 | MOREAU John A. | 7% | 26% | 34% | 23% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 109 | GIBSON Nowell L. | 10% | 28% | 34% | 21% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 111 | INSLER Gabriel C. | 2% | 10% | 25% | 32% | 22% | 8% | 1% |
| 111 | SITBON-TAYLOR Noe B. | 9% | 29% | 34% | 20% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 111 | GUINAN Joseph | 1% | 9% | 28% | 35% | 21% | 6% | 1% |
| 114 | SPIER Julian H. | - | 4% | 16% | 31% | 31% | 15% | 3% |
| 115 | LEAVITT III Philip N. | 36% | 42% | 18% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 116 | JEONG Connor | 8% | 26% | 33% | 23% | 8% | 2% | - |
| 117 | RUSSANOV Boris J. | 14% | 35% | 32% | 15% | 4% | - | - |
| 118 | WANG Nathan | 15% | 34% | 31% | 15% | 4% | 1% | - |
| 119 | IYOKI Kent | 9% | 31% | 37% | 19% | 4% | - | |
| 120 | KUMASHI Mihir R. | 1% | 5% | 18% | 31% | 29% | 14% | 2% |
| 121 | CHA Russell W. | 4% | 19% | 32% | 28% | 13% | 3% | - |
| 122 | LEE Aaron Y. | 12% | 34% | 34% | 16% | 3% | - | |
| 123 | COMER Daniel T. | 14% | 34% | 32% | 15% | 4% | - | - |
| 124 | SMITH Nicholas S. | 21% | 39% | 28% | 10% | 2% | - | - |
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.