Who is better, Bethea or Alworth?
Elvin Bethea leads with a GOAT score of 86.7 against 86.7 for Lance Alworth — 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 Elvin Bethea and Lance Alworth level at 86.7. Elvin Bethea leads on Longevity, Statistics. Lance Alworth leads on Dominance, Peak, Honours.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Bethea wins: Longevity, Statistics
Alworth wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours
Shareable URL · /compare/elvin-bethea-vs-lance-alworth
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Bethea 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 Bethea | 0 | 0 | 50 | 106 | 234 | 653 |
| 🇺🇸 Alworth | 0 | 0 | 45 | 100 | 329 | 643 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | BetheaRetired | AlworthRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Unofficial career sacks | 105 | — |
| Pro Bowls | 8 | — |
| Seasons played | 16 | — |
| Games played | 210 | — |
| Sacks in one game | 4 | — |
| Receiving yards | — | 10,266 |
| Receiving touchdowns | — | 85 |
| All-AFL selections | — | 7 |
| Consecutive games with a catch | — | 96 |
| Super Bowl titles | — | 1 |
| Dominance w25% | 82 | 88 |
| Peak w20% | 90 | 94 |
| Longevity w20% | 90 | 76 |
| Honours w20% | 82 | 86 |
| Statistics w15% | 92 | 90 |
Elvin Bethea leads with a GOAT score of 86.7 against 86.7 for Lance Alworth — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Alworth scores higher on peak, dominance, honours. Bethea leads on statistics, longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Bethea: 86.7, Alworth: 86.7.
Make your case for Bethea vs Alworth. 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.