Who is better, Christiansen or Alworth?
Jack Christiansen 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 Jack Christiansen and Lance Alworth level at 86.7. Jack Christiansen leads on Honours. Lance Alworth leads on Peak, Longevity.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Christiansen wins: Honours
Alworth wins: Peak, Longevity
Shareable URL · /compare/jack-christiansen-vs-lance-alworth
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Christiansen 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 Christiansen | 0 | 0 | 50 | 112 | 368 | 535 |
| 🇺🇸 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 | ChristiansenRetired | AlworthRetired |
|---|---|---|
| NFL titles | 3 | — |
| Career interceptions | 46 | — |
| Punt return touchdowns | 8 | — |
| Pro Bowls | 5 | — |
| All-Pro selections | 6 | — |
| Receiving yards | — | 10,266 |
| Receiving touchdowns | — | 85 |
| All-AFL selections | — | 7 |
| Consecutive games with a catch | — | 96 |
| Super Bowl titles | — | 1 |
| Dominance w25% | 88 | 88 |
| Peak w20% | 92 | 94 |
| Longevity w20% | 74 | 76 |
| Honours w20% | 90 | 86 |
| Statistics w15% | 90 | 90 |
Jack Christiansen 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, longevity. Christiansen leads on honours.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Christiansen: 86.7, Alworth: 86.7.
Make your case for Christiansen 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.