Who is better, Lowe or Renshaw?
Gordon Lowe leads with a GOAT score of 82.4 against 82.4 for William Renshaw — 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 Gordon Lowe and William Renshaw level at 82.4. Gordon Lowe leads on Longevity, Statistics. William Renshaw leads on Dominance, Peak, Honours.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Lowe wins: Longevity, Statistics
Renshaw wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours
Shareable URL · /compare/gordon-lowe-vs-william-renshaw
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Lowe 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇬🇧 Lowe | 0 | 0 | 50 | 105 | 303 | 640 |
| 🇬🇧 Renshaw | 0 | 0 | 55 | 120 | 282 | 660 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | LoweRetired | RenshawRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Grand Slam singles titles | 1 | — |
| Davis Cup ties | 14 | — |
| Seasons played | 23 | — |
| National titles | 2 | — |
| World top-ten rankings | 3 | — |
| Wimbledon singles titles | — | 7 |
| Consecutive Wimbledon titles | — | 6 |
| Wimbledon doubles titles | — | 5 |
| Major finals | — | 8 |
| Seasons on tour | — | 10 |
| Dominance w25% | 76 | 88 |
| Peak w20% | 86 | 94 |
| Longevity w20% | 88 | 62 |
| Honours w20% | 80 | 86 |
| Statistics w15% | 84 | 80 |
Gordon Lowe leads with a GOAT score of 82.4 against 82.4 for William Renshaw — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Renshaw scores higher on peak, dominance, honours. Lowe leads on statistics, longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Lowe: 82.4, Renshaw: 82.4.
Make your case for Lowe vs Renshaw. 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.