Cincinnati, OH - Cincinnati, OH, 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 | HUDSON Jeffrey (Jeff) A. | - | 3% | 19% | 41% | 31% | 6% | |
2 | STEWART Robert | - | - | 3% | 13% | 32% | 37% | 16% |
3 | SNIDER Jeffrey H. | 3% | 18% | 34% | 30% | 13% | 3% | - |
3 | MEHALL Michael | - | 3% | 13% | 29% | 33% | 18% | 4% |
5 | HITCHCOCK David | - | - | 2% | 15% | 38% | 35% | 11% |
6 | JOHNSON Jeff | - | 3% | 14% | 30% | 32% | 17% | 3% |
7 | WILKINSON Derek H. | - | 1% | 9% | 29% | 37% | 20% | 4% |
8 | PHO Eric | 1% | 7% | 24% | 35% | 24% | 8% | 1% |
9 | BARTLETT Jonathan R. | - | - | 3% | 15% | 34% | 35% | 12% |
10 | WALLACE Patric | - | - | 3% | 15% | 36% | 34% | 12% |
11 | NEALE James H. | - | 1% | 7% | 21% | 34% | 28% | 9% |
12 | BEIHOLD James (Jim) K. | 4% | 19% | 33% | 28% | 12% | 3% | - |
13 | JENSEN David | 4% | 18% | 31% | 28% | 14% | 4% | - |
14 | WALKER William H. | 1% | 6% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 8% | |
15 | DIDASKALOU Ilias L. | - | 2% | 13% | 30% | 33% | 17% | 3% |
16 | KLINE R. Jay | 1% | 8% | 25% | 36% | 24% | 6% | - |
17 | SKOPIK Jr August | - | - | 3% | 15% | 34% | 35% | 13% |
18 | POULIQUEN Benoit (Ben) | - | 1% | 7% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 7% |
19 | SCOTT George R. | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 38% | 27% | 5% |
20 | GERACI Paul A. | - | - | 5% | 19% | 35% | 31% | 10% |
21 | FOLEY Kevin | - | 2% | 10% | 30% | 40% | 19% | |
22 | MAZZOLI Julio C. | 3% | 17% | 34% | 31% | 13% | 2% | |
23 | MARSH Timothy G. | 1% | 6% | 23% | 39% | 27% | 6% | |
24 | BARREIRO Darren | - | 2% | 11% | 30% | 35% | 19% | 4% |
25 | FRANK Fred | - | - | 4% | 20% | 40% | 29% | 6% |
26 | VARNEY John R. | 9% | 28% | 35% | 21% | 7% | 1% | - |
27 | ABELE Chris | - | 1% | 8% | 24% | 34% | 25% | 7% |
28 | JOHNSON David L. | - | 3% | 17% | 35% | 31% | 12% | 1% |
29 | PERKA Michael | - | 2% | 10% | 25% | 33% | 23% | 6% |
30 | TOOMEY Brian L. | - | 4% | 18% | 33% | 30% | 13% | 2% |
31 | SANTOS Felipe | - | 2% | 12% | 29% | 34% | 19% | 4% |
32 | SUVEG Bela | - | 5% | 20% | 38% | 31% | 7% | |
33 | DEUCHER Joseph H. | - | - | 1% | 12% | 35% | 38% | 14% |
34 | RESHEIDAT Shadi | - | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 42% | 27% |
35 | DOWNEY Gerard C. | - | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 41% | 31% |
36 | SPAHN Jeff | - | 3% | 20% | 42% | 29% | 6% | |
37 | BAXTER Daniel J. | - | 5% | 19% | 36% | 30% | 10% | |
38 | LEE Tobias (Toby) T. | 1% | 10% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 5% | - |
39 | LOGAN Mark P. | 1% | 10% | 30% | 35% | 19% | 5% | - |
40 | SWANSON Dave | 2% | 12% | 31% | 34% | 17% | 4% | - |
41 | BLANCHARD Aaron (Sam) S. | - | 2% | 13% | 30% | 34% | 18% | 3% |
42 | HARRIS Robert S. | - | 5% | 19% | 35% | 31% | 11% | |
43 | GAUVEY Ken C. | 2% | 13% | 30% | 32% | 18% | 5% | 1% |
43 | ALLEN Graham | - | 3% | 14% | 31% | 33% | 16% | 2% |
45 | YAO Shun | - | 2% | 10% | 28% | 36% | 20% | 4% |
46 | PARY Theodore | - | 4% | 20% | 36% | 29% | 10% | 1% |
47 | SUMLER Jeffery | - | - | 1% | 7% | 28% | 43% | 22% |
48 | EVANS Allen L. | - | 4% | 16% | 32% | 32% | 14% | 2% |
49 | MILLS Tim A. | - | 1% | 6% | 21% | 35% | 28% | 9% |
49 | CULLER Michael (Mike) D. | 1% | 8% | 24% | 34% | 24% | 8% | 1% |
51 | SAYLOR David A. | 1% | 6% | 20% | 32% | 28% | 12% | 2% |
52 | BRONZO Thomas E. | - | 3% | 15% | 32% | 33% | 15% | 2% |
53 | DESAMOURS Georges H. | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 34% | 29% | 10% |
54 | DAMIANI Paolo | - | 4% | 18% | 33% | 30% | 13% | 2% |
55 | DICKSON Tim | - | 6% | 21% | 35% | 27% | 9% | 1% |
56 | KRUGER Mark (Mark Kruger) | 5% | 22% | 34% | 26% | 11% | 2% | - |
57 | NEMAZIE David A. | 1% | 6% | 21% | 34% | 26% | 10% | 1% |
57 | BRUCE II Ommer E. | 1% | 7% | 22% | 33% | 26% | 10% | 1% |
59 | OCHS Bradley C. | 1% | 7% | 20% | 32% | 27% | 12% | 2% |
60 | ROUSE Joseph (Joe) T. | 6% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 8% | 1% | - |
61 | CASTELLANOS Rene E. | 29% | 42% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - | |
62 | SWANN William A. | 11% | 32% | 35% | 17% | 4% | - | |
63 | PAPADOPOULOS Nic | - | 2% | 15% | 34% | 33% | 14% | 2% |
64 | SIMMONS Matthew C. | - | 6% | 25% | 38% | 25% | 6% | |
65 | PEISTRUP Gregory (Greg) L. | 3% | 15% | 30% | 31% | 17% | 5% | - |
66 | DUFFY Gerald | 2% | 16% | 36% | 32% | 12% | 1% | |
67 | LEONARDINI Barry M. | 26% | 47% | 22% | 4% | - | - | |
68 | KAIN Brad | 2% | 12% | 30% | 34% | 18% | 4% | - |
69 | SILVANIA Michael | 6% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - |
70 | FANGMAN Daniel L. | 1% | 12% | 30% | 33% | 18% | 5% | - |
70 | ANDERSON Michael L. | 11% | 37% | 36% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
72 | MARSHALL William L. | 5% | 19% | 33% | 28% | 12% | 2% | - |
73 | KING Charles M. | 6% | 23% | 34% | 26% | 10% | 2% | - |
74 | TIERNEY Luke | 13% | 35% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
75 | RITCHIE Mark T. | 3% | 24% | 39% | 26% | 7% | 1% | |
76 | TKACH Robert W. | 1% | 24% | 43% | 25% | 6% | - | |
77 | SCHROEDER William | 12% | 34% | 35% | 16% | 3% | - | |
78 | KIM Brad K. | 3% | 20% | 38% | 29% | 9% | 1% | - |
79 | BARAFF David | 9% | 31% | 38% | 19% | 4% | - | - |
80 | PARTE Aidan | 47% | 41% | 11% | 1% | - | - | - |
81 | VAN GOLEN Kenneth L. | 1% | 7% | 24% | 37% | 24% | 6% | - |
82 | GERSEN Jacob | 36% | 43% | 18% | 3% | - | - | - |
83 | KATOPES Peter | 4% | 19% | 34% | 28% | 12% | 2% | - |
84 | BERMENDER Eric | 6% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 9% | 2% | - |
85 | RIFKIND Neil | 5% | 27% | 40% | 23% | 5% | 1% | - |
86 | LIPTON Michael D. | 9% | 29% | 34% | 21% | 6% | 1% | - |
87 | GILLESPIE Jeremy W. | 5% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 10% | 1% | - |
88 | BRADFORD Wayne D. | 9% | 29% | 36% | 21% | 5% | - | |
89 | GRAVIS Martin V. | 12% | 32% | 34% | 18% | 5% | 1% | - |
90 | HVIDING Ketil | 10% | 40% | 35% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
90 | MEHALL Michael | 17% | 39% | 31% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
92 | KRICK Jon | 9% | 32% | 39% | 18% | 2% | - | - |
93 | SATTERWHITE William W. | 13% | 36% | 35% | 14% | 3% | - | - |
94 | POMPIAN Mark | 11% | 36% | 38% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
95 | WINTERSHEIMER Blaise Q. | 7% | 46% | 36% | 10% | 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.