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 | DRAGONETTI Walter E. | - | - | 3% | 13% | 31% | 37% | 16% |
| 2 | TAYLOR Daryl J. | - | 1% | 5% | 20% | 36% | 30% | 9% |
| 3 | ALEXANDER Charles (Chuck) H. | 1% | 9% | 28% | 37% | 21% | 4% | |
| 3 | HENZLER Thomas A. | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 38% | 26% | 6% |
| 5 | RICHARDS Dick | - | - | 1% | 9% | 30% | 41% | 18% |
| 6 | NEALE James H. | - | - | 3% | 18% | 42% | 37% | |
| 7 | SCHNEIDER Charles (Charlie) J. | 1% | 12% | 32% | 36% | 17% | 3% | |
| 8 | HUNKER Frederick | 3% | 18% | 35% | 31% | 12% | 2% | |
| 9 | BEIHOLD James (Jim) K. | - | 4% | 21% | 39% | 29% | 6% | |
| 10 | MARIANI Lou | - | 1% | 5% | 20% | 36% | 29% | 9% |
| 11 | WEINGARTEN Solomon (Sol) | - | - | 1% | 8% | 27% | 41% | 24% |
| 12 | BRUCE II Ommer E. | 1% | 10% | 30% | 37% | 19% | 3% | |
| 13 | RIDGE John (Drew) A. | - | 1% | 7% | 25% | 39% | 24% | 3% |
| 14 | BOTHELIO Jere P. | - | - | 2% | 14% | 36% | 37% | 11% |
| 15 | DOWNEY Gerard C. | - | - | 2% | 16% | 42% | 40% | |
| 16 | GELNAW William (Gypsy) H. | 4% | 19% | 35% | 30% | 11% | 1% | |
| 17 | KAROLAK Dale W. | - | - | - | 1% | 9% | 38% | 52% |
| 18 | SIMMONS Matthew C. | - | - | 5% | 24% | 43% | 23% | 4% |
| 19 | WILSON Victor T. | - | 2% | 11% | 31% | 36% | 18% | 3% |
| 20 | SEGAL Mark N. | 1% | 10% | 27% | 35% | 22% | 5% | |
| 21 | LARTZ John A. | - | 2% | 11% | 30% | 39% | 18% | |
| 22 | PAVLOVICH Robert | - | 4% | 19% | 36% | 30% | 10% | 1% |
| 23 | REDDING Russel M. | - | 6% | 24% | 37% | 25% | 7% | |
| 24 | WATSON Donald W. | 1% | 10% | 28% | 35% | 21% | 4% | |
| 25 | CULLER Michael (Mike) D. | - | 7% | 25% | 37% | 25% | 6% | |
| 26 | DAMIANI Paolo | 1% | 13% | 34% | 34% | 15% | 2% | |
| 27 | KING Charles M. | - | 6% | 22% | 37% | 27% | 8% | 1% |
| 28 | TIERNEY Luke | 4% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 29 | WHEELER Mark C. | 12% | 34% | 34% | 16% | 4% | - | |
| 30 | LUTTON Thomas (Tom) W. | 6% | 27% | 40% | 22% | 5% | - | - |
| 31 | KRICK Jon | 16% | 37% | 32% | 13% | 3% | - | - |
| 32 | MCDONNELL Michael | 8% | 28% | 36% | 22% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 33 | EVANS Allen L. | - | - | 6% | 29% | 41% | 20% | 3% |
| 34 | MASE James B. | - | 3% | 17% | 34% | 31% | 13% | 2% |
| 35 | HERMAN Ronald J. | 7% | 27% | 37% | 23% | 6% | - | |
| 36 | RESS Michael A. | 3% | 20% | 38% | 29% | 9% | 1% | |
| 37 | WALKER William H. | - | - | 1% | 8% | 32% | 45% | 14% |
| 38 | SCOTT George R. | - | 1% | 5% | 20% | 36% | 29% | 9% |
| 39 | BRADFORD Wayne D. | 11% | 38% | 38% | 12% | 1% | - | - |
| 40 | MILLIGAN Bruce C. | - | 5% | 26% | 42% | 22% | 4% | - |
| 41 | ROUSE Joseph (Joe) T. | 7% | 31% | 39% | 19% | 4% | - | |
| 42 | GOLDGAR Dirk | 2% | 14% | 33% | 34% | 15% | 2% | |
| 43 | KLEIN Johannes | - | 2% | 19% | 39% | 31% | 9% | - |
| 44 | GRAVIS Martin V. | 48% | 38% | 12% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 45 | ANDERSON Michael L. | 17% | 40% | 31% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 46 | CASTELLANOS Rene E. | 7% | 29% | 40% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
| 47 | WINGET William (Bill) D. | 3% | 14% | 30% | 31% | 17% | 5% | - |
| 48 | FLEMING J Daniel (Dan) | 2% | 15% | 34% | 33% | 13% | 2% | |
| 49 | LOGAN Mark P. | 3% | 20% | 38% | 29% | 9% | 1% | |
| 50 | BARNA Randall | 1% | 6% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 8% | 1% |
| 51 | MYERS Brent M. | 4% | 25% | 39% | 24% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 52 | HVIDING Ketil | 33% | 48% | 16% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 53 | LANDIS Geoffrey A. | 4% | 22% | 39% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 54 | POMPIAN Mark | 27% | 47% | 22% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 55 | SCHROEDER William | 33% | 42% | 20% | 4% | - | - | |
| 56 | ROSENTHAL Paul E. | 13% | 35% | 35% | 15% | 3% | - | |
| 57 | TKACH Robert W. | 44% | 43% | 12% | 1% | - | - | |
| 58 | ALPERSTEIN Donald W. | 2% | 20% | 37% | 28% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 59 | FRANK William N. | 9% | 33% | 38% | 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.