Who is better, Savitt or Parke?
Dick Savitt leads with a GOAT score of 81.1 against 81.0 for James Cecil Parke — 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 Dick Savitt above James Cecil Parke: 81.1 vs 81.0. Dick Savitt leads on Dominance, Peak, Honours. James Cecil Parke leads on Longevity, Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Savitt wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours
Parke wins: Longevity, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/dick-savitt-vs-james-cecil-parke
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Savitt 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 Savitt | 0 | 0 | 40 | 109 | 371 | 586 |
| 🇮🇪 Parke | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 46 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | SavittRetired | ParkeRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Major singles titles | 2 | — |
| Major titles in one year | 2 | — |
| Davis Cup wins | 5 | — |
| Wimbledon titles | 1 | — |
| Australian Championships | 1 | — |
| Grand Slam singles titles | — | 1 |
| Grand Slam mixed titles | — | 2 |
| Davis Cup titles | — | 1 |
| Rugby caps for Ireland | — | 20 |
| Career years | — | 17 |
| Dominance w25% | 80 | 74 |
| Peak w20% | 94 | 90 |
| Longevity w20% | 70 | 80 |
| Honours w20% | 80 | 78 |
| Statistics w15% | 82 | 86 |
Dick Savitt leads with a GOAT score of 81.1 against 81.0 for James Cecil Parke — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Parke scores higher on statistics, longevity. Savitt leads on peak, dominance, honours.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Savitt: 81.1, Parke: 81.0.
Make your case for Savitt vs Parke. 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.