Who is better, Choynski or Hamed?
Naseem Hamed leads with a GOAT score of 83.8 against 83.7 for Joe Choynski — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
AthletesTeams
Choynski vs Hamed
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Naseem Hamed above Joe Choynski: 83.8 vs 83.7. Naseem Hamed leads on Honours, Dominance, Peak. Joe Choynski leads on Longevity.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →GOAT verdictgoatrank.world
HamedWinner
83.8Hamed wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours
Choynski
83.7Choynski wins: Longevity
Candidates
Locked to BoxingShareable URL · /compare/joe-choynski-vs-naseem-hamed
Time range
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Category radar
Verdict
Weighted GOAT score
🏴 Naseem Hamed
83.8
Hamed leads in 4 of 5 weighted categories.
1. Naseem Hamed
2. Joe Choynski
Category breakdown
Season form · Form index per season
Career timeline · Form index per season
Cumulative output season by season — the shape of each career against the other.
GOAT pace tracker
Career stage · GOAT pace
Through year 5 · Form index per season1. 🏴 Naseem Hamed5 years played · career day 1,826312 title wins
Setting the pace at this stage
2. 🇺🇸 Joe Choynski5 years played · career day 1,826289 title wins
-7.4% vs Hamed at the same stage
| Ghost race · career day | 30 | 100 | 365 | 1000 | 1825 | 3650 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 Choynski | 0 | 0 | 45 | 96 | 218 | 635 |
| 🏴 Hamed | 0 | 0 | 45 | 99 | 232 | 641 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 year periods are measured against the same career window.
Fan vote — data vs the people
GOAT Rank · the data
Hamed83.8
Choynski83.7
FAQ
Where does Choynski beat Hamed?
Choynski scores higher on longevity. Hamed leads on peak, dominance, honours.
How is the Choynski vs Hamed score calculated?
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Choynski: 83.7, Hamed: 83.8.
What do you think?
0 commentsMake your case for Choynski vs Hamed. 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.