Who is better, Albuquerque or Buldakova?
Lyudmila Buldakova leads with a GOAT score of 89.6 against 23.2 for Carolina Albuquerque — a gap of 66.4 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Lyudmila Buldakova above Carolina Albuquerque: 89.6 vs 23.2. Lyudmila Buldakova leads on Honours, Peak, Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Buldakova wins: Dominance, Peak, Longevity, Honours, Statistics
Albuquerque wins: no category outright
Shareable URL · /compare/disc-carolina-albuquerque-vs-lyudmila-buldakova
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Buldakova leads in 5 of 5 weighted categories.
Albuquerque — Insufficient verified career data to calculate a reliable GOAT Score.
Cumulative output season by season — the shape of each career against the other.
| Ghost race · career day | 30 | 100 | 365 | 1000 | 1825 | 3650 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇧🇷 Albuquerque | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 🇷🇺 Buldakova | 0 | 0 | 60 | 126 | 276 | 717 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | AlbuquerqueRetired | BuldakovaRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Olympic gold medals | — | 2 |
| Olympic medals | — | 3 |
| World Championship gold medals | — | 2 |
| European titles | — | 4 |
| Soviet league titles | — | 6 |
| Dominance w25% | 23.1 | 88 |
| Peak w20% | 25.1 | 94 |
| Longevity w20% | 21.1 | 84 |
| Honours w20% | 24.1 | 94 |
| Statistics w15% | 22.1 | 88 |
Loading votes
Create a free account to vote and comment.
Sign in to voteLyudmila Buldakova leads with a GOAT score of 89.6 against 23.2 for Carolina Albuquerque — a gap of 66.4 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Albuquerque does not lead any of the five categories; Buldakova is ahead or level on all of them.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Albuquerque: 23.2, Buldakova: 89.6.
Make your case for Albuquerque vs Buldakova. 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.