San Jose McEnery Convention Center - San Jose, CA, USA
Explore the probability of achieving at least a certain number of victories in the pool 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 | DRAGONETTI Walter E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 36% |
| 2 | PERKA Michael | 100% | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 24% | 4% |
| 3 | RICHARDS Dick | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 42% |
| 3 | AMELI Sean | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 65% | 20% | |
| 5 | WATRALL Rick | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 64% | 22% | |
| 6 | VARNEY John R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 25% |
| 7 | JOHNSON Jeff | 100% | 99% | 92% | 67% | 30% | 6% | |
| 8 | BAXTER Daniel J. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 72% | 32% | 6% | |
| 9 | JUGAN Bruce M. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 62% | 25% | 4% | |
| 10 | LIPTON Michael D. | 100% | 96% | 67% | 24% | 4% | - | |
| 11 | SCHINDLER Sergey M. | 100% | 98% | 82% | 46% | 13% | 1% | |
| 12 | GILLHAM Timothy A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 52% | 14% |
| 13 | BECK Brian C. | 100% | 92% | 65% | 29% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 14 | MARIANI Lou | 100% | 100% | 93% | 64% | 24% | 4% | |
| 15 | EVANS Allen L. | 100% | 99% | 91% | 61% | 24% | 5% | - |
| 16 | RANES Evan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 68% | 21% | |
| 17 | GRANDBOIS Peter R. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 62% | 22% |
| 18 | DEPOMMIER Remi | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 76% | 39% | 8% |
| 19 | NEALE James H. | 100% | 97% | 81% | 48% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 20 | LOEFFLER Carl E. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 50% | 13% | |
| 21 | VAN DYKE Frank | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 55% | 21% | 3% |
| 22 | POOLE James M. | 100% | 93% | 67% | 32% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 23 | HUDSON Jeffrey (Jeff) A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 38% | |
| 24 | JENSEN David | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 50% | 13% | |
| 25 | KAROLAK Dale W. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 74% | 38% | 9% | |
| 26 | HUGHES Michael D. | 100% | 94% | 69% | 32% | 7% | 1% | |
| 27 | SWANSON Dave | 100% | 97% | 78% | 41% | 11% | 1% | |
| 28 | LINGVAY Laurance (Larry) S. | 100% | 99% | 89% | 62% | 28% | 7% | 1% |
| 29 | CAMPBELL Kenneth | 100% | 81% | 42% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 30 | WHITELOCK James R. | 100% | 45% | 8% | 1% | - | - | |
| 31 | DOWNEY Gerard C. | 100% | 94% | 70% | 34% | 8% | 1% | |
| 32 | TREANOR Donald K. | 100% | 89% | 57% | 23% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 33 | HAYENGA Gary M. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 67% | 24% | |
| 34 | FRANK Fred | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 46% | 11% |
| 35 | KLEIN Johannes | 100% | 93% | 68% | 31% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 36 | MASE James B. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 35% | 7% |
| 37 | TATU Dan M. | 100% | 99% | 93% | 72% | 37% | 9% | |
| 38 | ARTHURS David | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 56% | 16% | |
| 39 | OLSON Mark R. | 100% | 38% | 6% | < 1% | - | - | |
| 40 | TULLY Thomas F. | 100% | 99% | 87% | 57% | 22% | 3% | |
| 41 | O'NEILL Kevin S. | 100% | 84% | 36% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 42 | HOOPES Jr. Richard R. | 100% | 77% | 36% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 43 | WHEELER Mark C. | 100% | 100% | 91% | 58% | 18% | 2% | |
| 44 | BAXTER David | 100% | 96% | 75% | 40% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 45 | KRUGER Mark | 100% | 100% | 96% | 75% | 37% | 10% | 1% |
| 46 | MCINTOSH Michael | 100% | 96% | 78% | 43% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 47 | DELGADO Jr. Eli M. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 89% | 61% | 25% | 3% |
| 47 | JONES John (Mike) M. | 100% | 93% | 67% | 32% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 49 | LUCASEY Charles (Chuck) J. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 82% | 50% | 16% | 2% |
| 50 | KANE Tim | 100% | 75% | 33% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 51 | LANDIS Geoffrey A. | 100% | 41% | 8% | 1% | - | - | |
| 52 | KOERBER Christopher T. | 100% | 96% | 68% | 26% | 4% | - | |
| 53 | POPPRE Michael N. | 100% | 98% | 82% | 46% | 14% | 2% | |
| 54 | ASTLE Stephen | 100% | 51% | 11% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 55 | HVIDING Ketil | 100% | 83% | 35% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 56 | BEITTEL David F. | 100% | 94% | 70% | 34% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 57 | BRUCE II Ommer E. | 100% | 89% | 55% | 19% | 3% | - | |
| 58 | SWANN William A. | 100% | 85% | 48% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
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.