Greater Columbus Convention Center - Columbus, OH, 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 | FRANK Fred | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 86% | 54% | 15% |
| 2 | DRAGONETTI Walter E. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 43% |
| 3 | WATRALL Rick | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 73% | 30% |
| 3 | AMELI Sean | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 78% | 34% |
| 5 | JUGAN Bruce M. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 27% |
| 6 | DEPOMMIER Remi | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 69% | 30% | 5% |
| 7 | SWANSON Dave | 100% | 98% | 80% | 44% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 8 | VARNEY John R. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 71% | 37% | 9% |
| 9 | SCHINDLER Sergey M. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 66% | 27% | 4% |
| 10 | BAXTER Daniel J. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 82% | 53% | 21% | 4% |
| 11 | JENSEN David | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 82% | 44% | 9% |
| 12 | GILLHAM Timothy A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 46% | 11% |
| 13 | MAZZOLI Julio C. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 72% | 32% | 6% |
| 14 | KAROLAK Dale W. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 84% | 48% | 11% |
| 15 | GLASS Timothy C. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 51% | 14% |
| 16 | PIERRO Roger | 100% | 95% | 75% | 39% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 17 | WHEELER Mark C. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 50% | 19% | 3% |
| 18 | HUGHES Michael D. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 79% | 46% | 15% | 2% |
| 19 | CROUCH William John (John) | 100% | 97% | 80% | 43% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 20 | DEW Eric | 100% | 100% | 98% | 85% | 54% | 19% | 3% |
| 21 | RICHARDS Dick | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 74% | 31% |
| 22 | EVANS Allen L. | 100% | 100% | 98% | 67% | 25% | 4% | - |
| 23 | HUDSON Jeffrey (Jeff) A. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 94% | 71% | 28% |
| 24 | MCTIGUE J. Michael | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 51% | 17% | 2% |
| 25 | BUSH Thomas | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 54% | 20% | 3% |
| 26 | LINGVAY Laurance (Larry) S. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 64% | 26% | 5% | - |
| 27 | RANES Evan | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 88% | 55% | 15% |
| 28 | SIMMONS Matthew C. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 84% | 44% | 11% | 1% |
| 29 | GLENNON Michael | 100% | 99% | 92% | 66% | 31% | 8% | 1% |
| 30 | POPPRE Michael N. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 94% | 68% | 27% | 4% |
| 31 | MARKOWITZ William M. | 100% | 92% | 60% | 22% | 4% | - | - |
| 32 | SIEDOW Jeffrey | 100% | 79% | 35% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 33 | HOWARD Eric F. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 95% | 77% | 44% | 12% |
| 34 | WAGMAN Robert S. | 100% | 99% | 92% | 70% | 36% | 11% | 1% |
| 35 | MARIANI Lou | 100% | 99% | 89% | 61% | 25% | 5% | - |
| 36 | PERKA Michael | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 68% | 32% | 6% |
| 37 | DOWNEY Gerard C. | 100% | 100% | 95% | 75% | 37% | 9% | 1% |
| 38 | BAXTER David | 100% | 94% | 71% | 36% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 39 | MITCHELL Matthew D. | 100% | 52% | 13% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 40 | BECK Brian C. | 100% | 95% | 73% | 37% | 11% | 2% | - |
| 41 | SCOTT George R. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 84% | 56% | 23% | 4% |
| 42 | HUNKER Frederick | 100% | 88% | 54% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
| 43 | DELGADO Jr. Eli M. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 51% | 18% | 2% |
| 44 | STONE Ken | 100% | 73% | 8% | - | - | - | - |
| 45 | WALTING Paul J. | 100% | 81% | 41% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 46 | ROSENTHAL Paul E. | 100% | 75% | 32% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 47 | LANDIS Geoffrey A. | 100% | 74% | 33% | 9% | 1% | - | - |
| 48 | MEAGHER Roderick | 100% | 85% | 50% | 18% | 3% | - | - |
| 49 | WHITE Scott | 100% | 49% | 12% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 50 | SMITH Herman E. | 100% | 96% | 74% | 36% | 10% | 1% | - |
| 51 | ANDERSON Sr. Danny R. | 100% | 90% | 52% | 17% | 3% | - | - |
| 52 | RIVERA Ricky N. | 100% | 86% | 46% | 12% | 1% | - | - |
| 53 | KLEIN Johannes | 100% | 92% | 62% | 25% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 53 | WHITELOCK James R. | 100% | 71% | 26% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 55 | ANDERSON Michael L. | 100% | 92% | 64% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 55 | LONADIER Robert | 100% | 34% | 1% | - | - | - | - |
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.