Who is better, Battles or Staubach?
Cliff Battles leads with a GOAT score of 80.6 against 80.4 for Roger Staubach — 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 Cliff Battles above Roger Staubach: 80.6 vs 80.4. Cliff Battles leads on Statistics, Peak, Dominance. Roger Staubach leads on Longevity, Honours.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Battles wins: Dominance, Peak, Statistics
Staubach wins: Longevity, Honours
Shareable URL · /compare/cliff-battles-vs-roger-staubach
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Battles 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 Battles | 0 | 0 | 60 | 127 | 283 | 468 |
| 🇺🇸 Staubach | 0 | 0 | 421 | 963 | 5,371 | 15,924 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | BattlesRetired | StaubachRetired |
|---|---|---|
| NFL titles | 1 | — |
| Rushing titles | 2 | — |
| First-team All-Pro selections | 3 | — |
| Career rushing yards | 3,622 | — |
| Seasons played | 6 | — |
| Super Bowl titles | — | 2 |
| Super Bowl MVP awards | — | 1 |
| Pro Bowls | — | 6 |
| Passing yards | — | 22,700 |
| Passer rating | — | 83.4 |
| Dominance w25% | 82 | 80 |
| Peak w20% | 92 | 88 |
| Longevity w20% | 62 | 70 |
| Honours w20% | 82 | 84 |
| Statistics w15% | 86 | 80 |
Cliff Battles leads with a GOAT score of 80.6 against 80.4 for Roger Staubach — a gap of 0.2 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Staubach scores higher on honours, longevity. Battles leads on peak, dominance, statistics.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Battles: 80.6, Staubach: 80.4.
Make your case for Battles vs Staubach. 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.