Who is better, Bátorfi or Hasegawa?
Csilla Bátorfi leads with a GOAT score of 82.0 against 82.0 for Nobuhiko Hasegawa — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently scores Csilla Bátorfi and Nobuhiko Hasegawa level at 82.0. Csilla Bátorfi leads on Longevity. Nobuhiko Hasegawa leads on Peak, Dominance, Honours.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Bátorfi wins: Longevity
Hasegawa wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/csilla-batorfi-tt-vs-nobuhiko-hasegawa
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Bátorfi leads in 1 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇭🇺 Bátorfi | 0 | 0 | 46 | 96 | 210 | 569 |
| 🇯🇵 Hasegawa | 0 | 0 | 58 | 126 | 388 | 702 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | BátorfiRetired | HasegawaRetired |
|---|---|---|
| European Championship titles | 2 | — |
| World Championship medals | 2 | 5 |
| Olympic appearances | 5 | — |
| European medals | 8 | — |
| National titles | 12 | — |
| World Championship singles titles | — | 1 |
| World team titles | — | 2 |
| Asian Championship titles | — | 2 |
| Years at the top level | — | 11 |
| Dominance w25% | 76 | 82 |
| Peak w20% | 85 | 92 |
| Longevity w20% | 88 | 70 |
| Honours w20% | 82 | 84 |
| Statistics w15% | 80 | 82 |
Csilla Bátorfi leads with a GOAT score of 82.0 against 82.0 for Nobuhiko Hasegawa — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Hasegawa scores higher on peak, dominance, honours, statistics. Bátorfi leads on longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Bátorfi: 82.0, Hasegawa: 82.0.
Make your case for Bátorfi vs Hasegawa. 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.