Who is better, Barnes or Wang Hao?
Wang Hao leads with a GOAT score of 76.7 against 76.5 for Chester Barnes — 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 Wang Hao above Chester Barnes: 76.7 vs 76.5. Wang Hao leads on Honours, Dominance. Chester Barnes leads on Peak, Longevity, Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Wang Hao wins: Dominance, Honours
Barnes wins: Peak, Longevity, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/chester-barnes-tt-vs-wang-hao
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Wang Hao 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🏴 Barnes | 0 | 0 | 46 | 99 | 297 | 619 |
| 🇨🇳 Wang Hao | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | BarnesRetired | Wang HaoRetired |
|---|---|---|
| English titles | 5 | — |
| European Championship appearances | 5 | — |
| World Championship appearances | 6 | — |
| English Open titles | 2 | — |
| International caps | 100 | — |
| World Championship singles titles | — | 1 |
| World Cup titles | — | 3 |
| Olympic medals | — | 4 |
| World team titles | — | 6 |
| Months at No. 1 | — | 30 |
| ITTF Tour titles | — | 18 |
| Dominance w25% | 72 | 74 |
| Peak w20% | 82 | 80 |
| Longevity w20% | 78 | 76 |
| Honours w20% | 74 | 78 |
| Statistics w15% | 78 | 76 |
Wang Hao leads with a GOAT score of 76.7 against 76.5 for Chester Barnes — a gap of 0.2 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Barnes scores higher on peak, statistics, longevity. Wang Hao leads on dominance, honours.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Barnes: 76.5, Wang Hao: 76.7.
Make your case for Barnes vs Wang Hao. 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.