Who is better, Hyatt or Clifton?
Charley Hyatt leads with a GOAT score of 79.7 against 79.5 for Nat Clifton — a gap of 0.2 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Charley Hyatt above Nat Clifton: 79.7 vs 79.5. Charley Hyatt leads on Dominance, Peak, Statistics. Nat Clifton leads on Longevity, Honours.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Hyatt wins: Dominance, Peak, Statistics
Clifton wins: Longevity, Honours
Shareable URL · /compare/charley-hyatt-vs-nat-clifton
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Hyatt 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 Hyatt | 0 | 0 | 12 | 26 | 56 | 96 |
| 🇺🇸 Clifton | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8.6 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | HyattRetired | CliftonRetired |
|---|---|---|
| All-American selections | 3 | — |
| National titles | 2 | — |
| College career points | 852 | — |
| Hall of Fame inductions | 1 | — |
| Seasons played | 10 | — |
| All-Star selections | — | 1 |
| NBA games played | — | 468 |
| Career points per game | — | 10 |
| Career rebounds per game | — | 8.2 |
| NBA Finals appearances | — | 3 |
| Dominance w25% | 78 | 72 |
| Peak w20% | 90 | 84 |
| Longevity w20% | 70 | 82 |
| Honours w20% | 78 | 80 |
| Statistics w15% | 84 | 82 |
Charley Hyatt leads with a GOAT score of 79.7 against 79.5 for Nat Clifton — a gap of 0.2 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Clifton scores higher on honours, longevity. Hyatt leads on peak, dominance, statistics.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Hyatt: 79.7, Clifton: 79.5.
Make your case for Hyatt vs Clifton. 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.