Who is better, Carner or Calcavecchia?
JoAnne Carner leads with a GOAT score of 84.2 against 84.2 for Mark Calcavecchia — 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 JoAnne Carner and Mark Calcavecchia level at 84.2. JoAnne Carner leads on Dominance, Honours. Mark Calcavecchia leads on Peak, Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Carner wins: Dominance, Honours
Calcavecchia wins: Peak, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/joanne-carner-vs-mark-calcavecchia
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Carner 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 Carner | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 10 | 16 |
| 🇺🇸 Calcavecchia | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | CarnerRetired | CalcavecchiaActive |
|---|---|---|
| Major titles | 2 | — |
| LPGA Tour wins | 43 | — |
| US Amateur titles | 5 | — |
| Player of the Year awards | 3 | — |
| Vare Trophies | 5 | — |
| Major championships | — | 1 |
| PGA Tour wins | — | 13 |
| Ryder Cup appearances | — | 4 |
| Champions Tour wins | — | 1 |
| Seasons on tour | — | 40 |
| Dominance w25% | 80 | 76 |
| Peak w20% | 86 | 90 |
| Longevity w20% | 90 | 90 |
| Honours w20% | 82 | 80 |
| Statistics w15% | 84 | 88 |
JoAnne Carner leads with a GOAT score of 84.2 against 84.2 for Mark Calcavecchia — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Calcavecchia scores higher on peak, statistics. Carner leads on dominance, honours.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Carner: 84.2, Calcavecchia: 84.2.
Make your case for Carner vs Calcavecchia. 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.