Who is better, Renshaw or Pietrangeli?
Ernest Renshaw leads with a GOAT score of 85.5 against 85.5 for Nicola Pietrangeli — 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 Ernest Renshaw and Nicola Pietrangeli level at 85.5. Ernest Renshaw leads on Dominance, Honours, Peak. Nicola Pietrangeli leads on Longevity, Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Renshaw wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours
Pietrangeli wins: Longevity, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/ernest-renshaw-vs-nicola-pietrangeli
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Renshaw 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇬🇧 Renshaw | 0 | 0 | 50 | 106 | 234 | 653 |
| 🇮🇹 Pietrangeli | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 29 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | RenshawRetired | PietrangeliRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Wimbledon singles titles | 1 | — |
| Wimbledon doubles titles | 5 | — |
| Wimbledon singles finals | 5 | — |
| Seasons played | 14 | — |
| Irish Championships titles | 2 | — |
| Grand Slam singles titles | — | 2 |
| Grand Slam doubles titles | — | 1 |
| Davis Cup matches | — | 164 |
| Davis Cup wins | — | 120 |
| Career titles | — | 48 |
| Dominance w25% | 84 | 80 |
| Peak w20% | 92 | 90 |
| Longevity w20% | 80 | 88 |
| Honours w20% | 86 | 82 |
| Statistics w15% | 86 | 90 |
Ernest Renshaw leads with a GOAT score of 85.5 against 85.5 for Nicola Pietrangeli — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Pietrangeli scores higher on statistics, longevity. Renshaw leads on peak, dominance, honours.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Renshaw: 85.5, Pietrangeli: 85.5.
Make your case for Renshaw vs Pietrangeli. 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.