Los Angeles Convention Center - Los Angeles, 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 | TEPEDELENLIOGLU Mehmet | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 66% |
| 2 | LICHTEN Keith H. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 81% | 33% |
| 3 | PRIHODKO Andrew | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 65% | 29% | 6% |
| 3 | LEE Tobias (Toby) T. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 98% | 83% | 46% | 10% |
| 5 | HEDGES Philip S. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 35% |
| 6 | GAINES Aaron | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 52% | 9% |
| 7 | CLAWSON Brian C. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 62% | 27% | 5% |
| 8 | WHEELER Daniel | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 34% | 8% |
| 9 | CRANOR Erich L. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 65% | 26% | 4% |
| 10 | COVANI CARLOS ENRIQUE | 100% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 79% | 45% | 12% |
| 11 | KROGH Daniel (Dan) M. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 80% | 38% | 7% | - |
| 12 | DEUCHER Joseph H. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 92% | 63% | 20% | 2% |
| 13 | MARSH Timothy G. | 100% | 100% | 97% | 81% | 47% | 15% | 2% |
| 14 | YAKIMENKO Andrei | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 64% | 28% | 5% |
| 15 | PALTINISEANU Sorin | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 46% | 12% |
| 16 | MAYCHROWITZ Matt | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 46% | 12% |
| 17 | SNIDER Jeffrey H. | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 85% | 55% | 17% |
| 18 | HITCHCOCK David | 100% | 100% | 100% | 97% | 83% | 49% | 14% |
| 19 | LE DEVEHAT Yannick | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 80% | 46% | 12% |
| 20 | MEHALL Michael | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 87% | 47% |
| 21 | BARREIRO Darren | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 33% | 7% |
| 22 | HUNTER Justin | 100% | 100% | 99% | 90% | 64% | 28% | 6% |
| 23 | HILLSTROM Nathan | 100% | 98% | 85% | 54% | 21% | 5% | - |
| 24 | HELGE James R. | 100% | 100% | 96% | 81% | 49% | 17% | 3% |
| 24 | SPRINGER Michael | 100% | 100% | 99% | 87% | 55% | 18% | 2% |
| 26 | HABIB Farooq | 100% | 100% | 100% | 96% | 75% | 33% | 5% |
| 26 | SANTOS Felipe | 100% | 96% | 62% | 22% | 4% | - | - |
| 28 | STEWART Robert | 100% | 100% | 99% | 89% | 60% | 24% | 4% |
| 29 | GAO "George" Xiaojiang | 100% | 84% | 33% | 7% | 1% | - | - |
| 30 | LEE Ambrose W. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 88% | 58% | 22% | 3% |
| 31 | ROBERTS Peter | 100% | 98% | 82% | 45% | 12% | 1% | - |
| 32 | BRUS Brian V. | 100% | 97% | 77% | 41% | 12% | 1% | - |
| 33 | CHEN Steve | 100% | 100% | 97% | 78% | 39% | 10% | 1% |
| 34 | WILSON Jeffrey M. | 100% | 100% | 99% | 91% | 63% | 25% | 4% |
| 35 | COETZEE Frans M. | 100% | 100% | 94% | 70% | 34% | 9% | 1% |
| 36 | CHENG Thomas | 100% | 100% | 99% | 93% | 70% | 34% | 8% |
| 37 | HARGROVE Charles | 100% | 100% | 96% | 77% | 41% | 12% | 1% |
| 38 | MUNRO Jason | 100% | 98% | 87% | 59% | 24% | 5% | - |
| 39 | MCNAMARA Scott | 100% | 97% | 77% | 37% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 40 | KLINE R. Jay | 100% | 100% | 90% | 55% | 18% | 3% | - |
| 41 | MARINI Davide | 100% | 96% | 76% | 41% | 13% | 2% | - |
| 42 | BAILEY Creston P. | 100% | 100% | 92% | 63% | 26% | 6% | - |
| 42 | KRYLTSOV Greg | 100% | 96% | 66% | 22% | 3% | - | - |
| 44 | KURITZ Marc M. | 100% | 94% | 54% | 16% | 2% | - | - |
| 44 | YI David | 100% | 22% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
| 46 | LOGUE Paul | 100% | 49% | 12% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 47 | KAUFMAN Joel H. | 100% | 99% | 88% | 52% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 48 | STERR Eric | 100% | 96% | 54% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
| 49 | DAVIS Kelly | 100% | 68% | 27% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 50 | DUONG John | 100% | 38% | 5% | - | - | - | - |
| 50 | WU Robert | 100% | 42% | 7% | - | - | - | - |
| 52 | ROGERS John D. | 100% | 14% | 1% | - | - | - | - |
| 53 | JEFFCOAT Timothy | 100% | 25% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
| 54 | FERRIERE Thomas | 100% | 91% | 50% | 12% | 1% | - | - |
| 54 | GREGORY Dean | 100% | 96% | 65% | 26% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 56 | MORALES William | 100% | 20% | 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.