Who is better, Mauresmo or Edmondson?
Mark Edmondson leads with a GOAT score of 75.8 against 75.7 for Amélie Mauresmo — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Mark Edmondson above Amélie Mauresmo: 75.8 vs 75.7. Mark Edmondson leads on Peak. Amélie Mauresmo leads on Longevity, Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Edmondson wins: Peak
Mauresmo wins: Longevity, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/amelie-mauresmo-vs-mark-edmondson
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Edmondson leads in 3 of 5 weighted categories.
Cumulative output season by season — the shape of each career against the other.
| Ghost race · career day | 30 | 100 | 365 | 1000 | 1825 | 3650 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇫🇷 Mauresmo | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 🇦🇺 Edmondson | 0 | 0 | 45 | 115 | 381 | 661 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | MauresmoRetired | EdmondsonRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Grand Slam titles | 2 | — |
| Career titles | 25 | — |
| Weeks at No. 1 | 39 | — |
| Olympic medals | 1 | — |
| Tour Finals titles | 1 | — |
| Fed Cups | 1 | — |
| Major singles titles | — | 1 |
| Major doubles titles | — | 5 |
| Career singles titles | — | 6 |
| Career-high world ranking | — | 15 |
| Seasons on tour | — | 15 |
| Dominance w25% | 70 | 70 |
| Peak w20% | 82 | 88 |
| Longevity w20% | 78 | 74 |
| Honours w20% | 74 | 74 |
| Statistics w15% | 76 | 74 |
Mark Edmondson leads with a GOAT score of 75.8 against 75.7 for Amélie Mauresmo — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Mauresmo scores higher on statistics, longevity. Edmondson leads on peak.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Mauresmo: 75.7, Edmondson: 75.8.
Make your case for Mauresmo vs Edmondson. The scoring is published in full — if you can point at the pillar or the weight you disagree with, we read it. Read the methodology paper.