San Jose McEnery Convention Center - San Jose, CA, 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 | O'LOUGHLIN Chris S. | - | - | - | - | - | 9% | 90% |
2 | GAINES Aaron | - | - | 1% | 5% | 22% | 43% | 29% |
3 | HEDGES Philip S. | - | - | - | - | 3% | 23% | 74% |
3 | CHANDLER Paul F. | - | - | 1% | 10% | 29% | 40% | 20% |
5 | MACZIK Adam W. | - | - | 1% | 10% | 30% | 40% | 18% |
6 | CARTER Austin L. | - | 1% | 9% | 26% | 36% | 23% | 5% |
7 | MEHALL Michael | - | - | - | 2% | 12% | 39% | 46% |
8 | LIOU Solomon | - | 4% | 16% | 30% | 31% | 16% | 3% |
9 | FRANK Fred | - | - | 2% | 13% | 33% | 37% | 14% |
10 | MAKMATOV Vadim | - | 1% | 8% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 5% |
11 | JUGAN Bruce M. | - | - | 1% | 6% | 27% | 44% | 22% |
12 | LEE Tobias (Toby) T. | - | - | 2% | 12% | 31% | 38% | 17% |
13 | MAYCHROWITZ Matt | - | 3% | 15% | 31% | 32% | 16% | 3% |
14 | GATES Darcy C. | - | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 41% | 26% |
15 | HERGERT Earl | - | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 42% | 23% |
16 | JENSEN David | - | 1% | 10% | 28% | 36% | 21% | 4% |
17 | PHO Eric | - | - | 1% | 10% | 31% | 40% | 18% |
18 | DEUCHER Joseph H. | - | - | 1% | 9% | 27% | 41% | 22% |
19 | VARNEY John R. | - | 2% | 11% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 5% |
20 | HARGROVE Charles | - | 3% | 16% | 33% | 32% | 14% | 2% |
21 | HUDSON Jeffrey (Jeff) A. | - | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 42% | 26% |
22 | JOHNSON Jeff | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 38% | 26% | 6% |
23 | PERKA Michael | - | 1% | 9% | 25% | 35% | 23% | 6% |
23 | FOSTER Kyle P. | - | - | 3% | 14% | 34% | 36% | 13% |
23 | KIM Jeff | 3% | 44% | 38% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
23 | PALTINISEANU Sorin | - | 1% | 4% | 17% | 34% | 33% | 11% |
27 | CRANOR Erich L. | - | - | 5% | 20% | 37% | 29% | 8% |
28 | TATU Dan M. | - | 2% | 11% | 26% | 33% | 22% | 6% |
29 | PRIHODKO Andrew | - | - | 3% | 19% | 39% | 31% | 8% |
29 | DEPOMMIER Remi | - | 2% | 11% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 5% |
31 | PENGELLY Neil | - | 1% | 8% | 28% | 38% | 21% | 4% |
32 | STEWART Robert | 2% | 11% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 5% | - |
33 | SCHINDLER Sergey M. | - | 1% | 6% | 25% | 41% | 26% | 1% |
34 | CLINEFELTER Dennis S. | - | 4% | 20% | 38% | 30% | 8% | - |
34 | BECK Brian C. | 2% | 15% | 34% | 32% | 14% | 3% | - |
36 | MASE James B. | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 38% | 22% | 5% |
37 | ARTHURS David | - | 2% | 13% | 32% | 34% | 17% | 3% |
37 | NEALE James H. | 1% | 7% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 7% | 1% |
39 | CLAWSON Brian C. | 2% | 13% | 29% | 32% | 18% | 5% | 1% |
40 | BARTLETT Jonathan R. | - | - | 1% | 8% | 29% | 42% | 20% |
41 | LIN Kimball | 11% | 31% | 34% | 19% | 5% | 1% | - |
42 | SPRINGER Michael | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 34% | 15% | 2% |
43 | KAUFMAN Joel H. | - | 1% | 8% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 6% |
44 | KURITZ Marc M. | - | 6% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 8% | 1% |
45 | FLY Paul | 1% | 8% | 26% | 35% | 23% | 7% | 1% |
45 | BEITTEL David F. | 14% | 33% | 33% | 16% | 4% | - | - |
47 | SPEICHER Eric V. | 1% | 9% | 28% | 36% | 21% | 5% | - |
48 | LYTLE Evan | - | - | 3% | 15% | 33% | 34% | 13% |
49 | DAVIS Andrew | - | 8% | 29% | 36% | 21% | 5% | - |
50 | BARREIRO Darren | - | 1% | 9% | 28% | 37% | 21% | 4% |
51 | EVANS Allen L. | 2% | 28% | 40% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - |
52 | RODACHY Jeffrey M. | 2% | 11% | 27% | 34% | 20% | 6% | 1% |
53 | HITCHCOCK David | - | 4% | 14% | 29% | 32% | 17% | 4% |
54 | KLEIN Johannes | 8% | 28% | 35% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - |
55 | STOCK Jordan | 2% | 15% | 33% | 32% | 15% | 3% | - |
56 | WHEELER Mark C. | 2% | 13% | 30% | 32% | 17% | 4% | - |
56 | GREENBAUM Isaac | - | - | 2% | 14% | 34% | 36% | 13% |
58 | LUCASEY Charles (Chuck) J. | - | 3% | 17% | 40% | 30% | 9% | 1% |
59 | HUGHES Michael D. | 3% | 15% | 31% | 32% | 16% | 3% | - |
60 | REED David | 28% | 45% | 23% | 4% | - | - | - |
61 | HOOPES Jr. Richard R. | 4% | 19% | 34% | 29% | 12% | 2% | - |
62 | ROOD Alex | 4% | 21% | 34% | 27% | 12% | 3% | - |
63 | ABELE Chris | 4% | 18% | 33% | 29% | 13% | 3% | - |
64 | WONG David | 46% | 39% | 12% | 2% | - | - | - |
65 | SCHULZ Andrew | 1% | 6% | 21% | 34% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
66 | ROUSE Joe T. | 4% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 9% | 2% | - |
67 | LOCASALE Nicholas A. | 5% | 22% | 35% | 27% | 9% | 1% | - |
68 | HILLSTROM Nathan | - | 21% | 41% | 28% | 9% | 1% | - |
68 | LANDIS Geoffrey A. | 7% | 31% | 41% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
70 | POOLE James M. | - | 13% | 36% | 35% | 14% | 2% | - |
71 | GETSLA Christopher W. | 2% | 11% | 28% | 33% | 20% | 5% | - |
71 | NEMAZIE David A. | - | 2% | 12% | 30% | 35% | 17% | 3% |
73 | DJURISIC Zoran M. | 12% | 34% | 35% | 16% | 3% | - | - |
73 | GREGORY Dean | 6% | 23% | 35% | 25% | 9% | 2% | - |
75 | CHU Brandon A. | 5% | 27% | 38% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - |
76 | SANTOS Felipe | 1% | 16% | 40% | 31% | 10% | 2% | - |
77 | LIEBICH James (Jim) A. | - | 4% | 16% | 32% | 31% | 14% | 2% |
78 | LOGUE Paul | 14% | 46% | 31% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
79 | MENDOZA Zandro | 3% | 17% | 32% | 30% | 14% | 3% | - |
80 | ONGSITCO Mark L. | 4% | 21% | 36% | 27% | 10% | 2% | - |
81 | KRUGER Mark | 2% | 18% | 36% | 30% | 12% | 2% | - |
82 | SLOAN Ryan | 11% | 32% | 34% | 17% | 4% | 1% | - |
83 | HUNTER Justin | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 38% | 26% | 5% |
84 | DOWNEY Gerard C. | - | 4% | 21% | 38% | 29% | 8% | - |
85 | WHITELOCK James R. | 46% | 39% | 13% | 2% | - | - | - |
85 | LIPTON Michael D. | 4% | 20% | 36% | 28% | 10% | 2% | - |
87 | KOERBER Christopher T. | 4% | 23% | 38% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
87 | CAMPBELL Kenneth | 25% | 42% | 25% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
89 | LIU Nathan | 22% | 45% | 27% | 5% | - | - | - |
90 | GAO "George" Xiaojiang | 43% | 40% | 14% | 2% | - | - | - |
91 | BLAKLEY Dwain | - | 5% | 26% | 38% | 24% | 7% | 1% |
92 | SILKEY Jason | 56% | 37% | 7% | - | - | - | - |
93 | LIPP Robert (Bob) J. | 2% | 16% | 34% | 31% | 14% | 3% | - |
94 | HVIDING Ketil | 52% | 37% | 10% | 1% | - | - | - |
95 | SIMONI James (Jim) V. | 77% | 21% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
95 | PERALTA Christian | 92% | 8% | - | - | - | - | - |
97 | TRAN NOBLE | 18% | 36% | 30% | 13% | 3% | - | - |
98 | GALLIVAN James | 98% | 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.