Philadelphia, PA - Philadelphia, PA, 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. | - | - | - | 1% | 12% | 45% | 43% |
2 | MARIANI Lou | - | 1% | 7% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 7% |
3 | VARNEY John R. | - | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 36% | 15% |
3 | SCHINDLER Sergey M. | - | 2% | 9% | 25% | 35% | 23% | 6% |
5 | RICHARDS Dick | - | 2% | 12% | 30% | 35% | 18% | 3% |
6 | O'DOWD Andrew J. | - | - | 1% | 5% | 19% | 41% | 34% |
7 | GLASS Timothy C. | - | 1% | 7% | 21% | 35% | 28% | 9% |
8 | SEGAL Mark N. | - | 1% | 7% | 22% | 35% | 27% | 8% |
9 | TAYLOR Daryl J. | - | - | 3% | 12% | 30% | 37% | 18% |
10 | WATRALL Rick | - | - | 2% | 14% | 37% | 36% | 11% |
11 | PERKA Michael | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 38% | 27% | 6% |
12 | NIXON Mark | - | - | 2% | 14% | 36% | 36% | 12% |
13 | WHEELER Mark C. | - | 1% | 9% | 31% | 42% | 15% | 2% |
14 | MARSHALL William L. | 1% | 8% | 29% | 40% | 19% | 3% | - |
15 | RANES Evan | 3% | 17% | 33% | 30% | 14% | 3% | - |
16 | DARRICAU Henri J. | - | 3% | 14% | 29% | 33% | 18% | 4% |
17 | WALLACE Patric | - | - | - | 2% | 19% | 51% | 27% |
18 | HENZLER Thomas A. | 1% | 8% | 25% | 35% | 24% | 6% | |
19 | FANGMAN Daniel L. | 4% | 21% | 34% | 26% | 11% | 2% | - |
20 | LUTTON Thomas (Tom) W. | - | 1% | 9% | 34% | 41% | 15% | |
21 | SETTE Alessandro | 8% | 30% | 36% | 20% | 5% | 1% | - |
22 | SIMMONS Matthew C. | - | 6% | 25% | 41% | 22% | 5% | - |
23 | SCHWARTZ Elliott | - | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 41% | 26% |
24 | KAROLAK Dale W. | - | - | 3% | 18% | 45% | 35% | |
25 | ALEXANDER Chuck | - | 2% | 15% | 40% | 34% | 9% | |
26 | BAXTER Daniel J. | - | 3% | 13% | 31% | 36% | 16% | |
27 | HANAHAN Thomas M. | 1% | 10% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 6% | 1% |
28 | MANOUKIAN David | - | 5% | 20% | 35% | 28% | 10% | 1% |
29 | MAZZOLI Julio C. | - | - | - | 5% | 24% | 44% | 26% |
30 | EVANS Allen L. | 2% | 11% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 4% | |
31 | MCDARBY Michael B. | 1% | 10% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 6% | 1% |
32 | HUGHES Michael D. | 1% | 9% | 28% | 35% | 21% | 6% | 1% |
33 | NEWSOME James L. | 5% | 23% | 35% | 26% | 10% | 2% | - |
34 | ROLANDO Doc | - | 5% | 19% | 34% | 29% | 11% | 1% |
35 | DOWNEY Gerard C. | - | 2% | 11% | 28% | 34% | 20% | 4% |
36 | MELCHER Charles | 1% | 10% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 6% | 1% |
37 | WAGMAN Robert S. | - | 1% | 7% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 7% |
38 | SKOPIK Jr August | 1% | 8% | 23% | 32% | 25% | 10% | 1% |
39 | SZOKOLAY Robert E. | - | 3% | 17% | 34% | 31% | 13% | 2% |
40 | SNYDER John W. | 9% | 30% | 35% | 20% | 5% | 1% | |
41 | CHELNITSKY Yuriy | 11% | 40% | 37% | 11% | 1% | - | |
42 | SMITH Herman E. | 4% | 19% | 35% | 29% | 11% | 2% | |
43 | LANDIS Geoffrey A. | 45% | 41% | 13% | 1% | - | - | |
44 | DAMIANI Paolo | 3% | 17% | 32% | 30% | 14% | 3% | - |
45 | TKACH Robert W. | 6% | 31% | 41% | 19% | 3% | - | - |
46 | TIERNEY Luke | 33% | 41% | 20% | 5% | 1% | - | - |
47 | PATTERSON Malcolm (Werewolf) D. | - | 4% | 15% | 29% | 31% | 17% | 4% |
48 | LOGAN Mark P. | 6% | 29% | 40% | 20% | 4% | - | - |
49 | BRUCE II Ommer E. | 2% | 15% | 33% | 31% | 15% | 3% | - |
50 | GILLESPIE Jeremy W. | 9% | 35% | 39% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
51 | ROUSE Joseph (Joe) T. | 7% | 33% | 42% | 17% | 2% | - | |
52 | KLEIN Johannes | 12% | 32% | 34% | 18% | 4% | - | |
53 | ROSENTHAL Paul E. | 11% | 36% | 36% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
54 | PLOY Jr Edward T. | 3% | 22% | 39% | 27% | 8% | 1% | - |
55 | MITCHELL Matthew D. | 37% | 41% | 18% | 4% | - | - | - |
56 | ENGLISH William | 4% | 21% | 37% | 27% | 9% | 1% | - |
57 | MYERS Brent M. | 37% | 44% | 17% | 2% | - | - | - |
58 | SARON michael | 49% | 40% | 10% | 1% | - | - | - |
59 | KRICK Jon | 42% | 42% | 14% | 2% | - | - | - |
60 | REDICK Samuel F. | 19% | 38% | 29% | 11% | 2% | - | - |
61 | RUSEN Gary V. | 23% | 40% | 27% | 8% | 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.