Who is better, Hooper or Garrincha?
Charmaine Hooper leads with a GOAT score of 85.0 against 84.9 for Garrincha — 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 Charmaine Hooper above Garrincha: 85.0 vs 84.9. Charmaine Hooper leads on Longevity, Statistics. Garrincha leads on Honours, Dominance, Peak.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Hooper wins: Longevity, Statistics
Garrincha wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours
Shareable URL · /compare/charmaine-hooper-v-vs-garrincha
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Hooper leads in 2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇨🇦 Hooper | 0 | 0 | 50 | 104 | 286 | 578 |
| 🇧🇷 Garrincha | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 52 | 125 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | HooperRetired | GarrinchaRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Canada caps | 129 | — |
| Canada goals | 71 | — |
| World Cup appearances | 4 | — |
| W-League titles | 2 | — |
| Career club goals | 150 | — |
| Career goals | — | 250 |
| World Cups | — | 2 |
| World Cup Golden Ball | — | 1 |
| State titles | — | 5 |
| International caps | — | 50 |
| International goals | — | 12 |
| Dominance w25% | 82 | 86 |
| Peak w20% | 89 | 93 |
| Longevity w20% | 86 | 76 |
| Honours w20% | 80 | 85 |
| Statistics w15% | 90 | 84 |
Charmaine Hooper leads with a GOAT score of 85.0 against 84.9 for Garrincha — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Garrincha scores higher on peak, dominance, honours. Hooper leads on statistics, longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Hooper: 85.0, Garrincha: 84.9.
Make your case for Hooper vs Garrincha. 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.