Louisville, KY, USA
Color shade indicates the magnitude of a surprise (positive or negative). Grey means no suprise. Read more.
| # | Name | Bout Difficulty vs. Outcome * | Pool Victories | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pool | DE | Exp. | Act. | Diff. | ||
| 1 | DRAGONETTI Walter E. | V V V V V V | V V V V V | 5.2 | 6 | +0.8 |
| 2 | FRANK Fred | V V V V D V | V V V V D | 4.1 | 5 | +0.9 |
| 3 | HUGHES Michael D. | V V V V V | V V V D | 2.7 | 5 | +2.3 |
| 3 | JENSEN David | D D V V D D | V V V V D | 3.8 | 2 | -1.8 |
| 5 | AMELI Sean | V V V V V V | V V D | 4.6 | 6 | +1.4 |
| 6 | GLASS Timothy C. | V V V D V D | V V V D | 4.0 | 4 | - |
| 7 | O'DOWD Andrew J. | D D D V V V | V V V D | 3.1 | 3 | -0.1 |
| 8 | DELGADO Jr. Eli M. | V D D D V D | V V V D | 3.8 | 2 | -1.8 |
| 9 | MASE James B. | V V V D V V | V D | 3.5 | 5 | +1.5 |
| 10 | VARNEY John R. | V V V V D | V D | 4.0 | 4 | - |
| 11 | ALEXANDER Chuck | V V D V V | V V D | 3.0 | 4 | +1.0 |
| 12 | WATRALL Rick | V V V V D D | V V D | 4.2 | 4 | -0.2 |
| 13 | HAYENGA Gary M. | V D V D V V | V V D | 4.4 | 4 | -0.4 |
| 14 | MAZZOLI Julio C. | V V D V D V | V V D | 4.1 | 4 | -0.1 |
| 15 | KAROLAK Dale W. | V V D V D | V V D | 3.1 | 3 | -0.1 |
| 16 | BAXTER Daniel J. | V D V D D | V V D | 3.2 | 2 | -1.2 |
| 17 | SEGAL Mark N. | V V V V V | D | 3.6 | 5 | +1.4 |
| 18 | RICHARDS Dick | V V V V D V | D | 4.6 | 5 | +0.4 |
| 19 | MARIANI Lou | D V V V V V | D | 3.5 | 5 | +1.5 |
| 20 | RANES Evan | V V V V V D | D | 4.1 | 5 | +0.9 |
| 21 | DARRICAU Henri J. | V V V D V | D | 2.9 | 4 | +1.1 |
| 22 | POPPRE Michael N. | V V V V D | V D | 3.1 | 4 | +0.9 |
| 23 | HUDSON Jeffrey (Jeff) A. | V V D V V D | V D | 4.5 | 4 | -0.5 |
| 24 | HANAHAN Thomas M. | V V D V V D | V D | 3.8 | 4 | +0.2 |
| 25 | SZOKOLAY Robert E. | V D V V V D | V D | 2.9 | 4 | +1.1 |
| 26 | WHEELER Mark C. | D V D V V | V D | 2.7 | 3 | +0.3 |
| 27 | DOWNEY Gerard C. | D V D D V V | V D | 4.0 | 3 | -1.0 |
| 28 | WAGMAN Robert S. | V D V D D V | V D | 3.2 | 3 | -0.2 |
| 29 | FANGMAN Daniel L. | D V V D V D | V D | 3.5 | 3 | -0.5 |
| 30 | EVANS Allen L. | D V D V D V | V D | 2.4 | 3 | +0.6 |
| 31 | SWANSON Dave | D D V V D | V D | 2.2 | 2 | -0.2 |
| 32 | DICKSON Tim | V V D D D | V D | 1.5 | 2 | +0.5 |
| 33 | KLEIN Johannes | V D D V V D | D | 2.0 | 3 | +1.0 |
| 34 | POOLE James M. | V D D D V V | D | 2.2 | 3 | +0.8 |
| 35 | MARSHALL William L. | D V D V D V | D | 2.3 | 3 | +0.7 |
| 36 | SCHINDLER Sergey M. | D D D V V | D | 3.2 | 2 | -1.2 |
| 37 | HUNKER Frederick | D D V D V | D | 0.8 | 2 | +1.2 |
| 38 | KRUGER Mark | V D V D D D | D | 2.7 | 2 | -0.7 |
| 39 | NEALE James H. | D D D D V V | D | 2.8 | 2 | -0.8 |
| 40 | GROSS Louis A. | D D V D V D | D | 0.6 | 2 | +1.4 |
| 41 | BALESTRACCI Chris | D V D D D V | D | 2.3 | 2 | -0.3 |
| 42 | SCOTT George R. | D D V D D | D | 3.2 | 1 | -2.2 |
| 43 | MONES Robert (Bob) J. | D D D D V | D | 1.2 | 1 | -0.2 |
| 44 | LIPTON Michael D. | D D D D V | D | 1.0 | 1 | - |
| 45 | PETRUNCIO Emil | D D D V D D | D | 1.1 | 1 | -0.1 |
| 46 | SWANN William A. | D D D D D V | D | 1.3 | 1 | -0.3 |
| 47 | LANDIS Geoffrey A. | D D V D D D | D | 1.1 | 1 | -0.1 |
| 48 | GILLESPIE Jeremy W. | D D D V D D | D | 1.2 | 1 | -0.2 |
| 49 | LINGVAY Laurance (Larry) S. | D D D D D D | D | 1.8 | 0 | -1.8 |
| 50 | SIMMONS Matthew C. | D D D D D | D | 2.1 | 0 | -2.1 |
| 51 | TIERNEY Luke | D D D D D | D | 1.2 | 0 | -1.2 |
| 52 | MARKOWITZ William M. | D D D D D D | D | 2.0 | 0 | -2.0 |
| 53 | HVIDING Ketil | D D D D D D | D | 0.4 | 0 | -0.4 |
Color coded boxes represent the outcome against opponents of varying difficulty levels from the perspective of the fencer. Letters inside the boxes indicate victory (V) and defeat (D).
| Color | Outcome | Opponent's Difficulty | Probability of Victory |
|---|---|---|---|
| Victory | Very Hard | 0% to 20% | |
| Victory | Hard | 20% to 40% | |
| Victory | Roughly Even | 40% to 60% | |
| Victory | Easy | 60% to 80% | |
| Victory | Very Easy | 80% to 100% | |
| Defeat | Very Hard | 0% to 20% | |
| Defeat | Hard | 20% to 40% | |
| Defeat | Roughly Even | 40% to 60% | |
| Defeat | Easy | 60% to 80% | |
| Defeat | Very Easy | 80% to 100% |
The visual cues provided in this table highlight bouts that may be considered surprises based on the relative strengths of the competitors:
This visualization is designed to give both fencers and spectators an immediate sense of the unexpected outcomes of the competition. While every bout has its unique circumstances, these indicators can help highlight moments where a fencer overcame the odds or where there was an unexpected turn of events.