Who is better, Pim or Bacsinszky?
Timea Bacsinszky leads with a GOAT score of 78.8 against 78.7 for Joshua Pim — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Timea Bacsinszky above Joshua Pim: 78.8 vs 78.7. Timea Bacsinszky leads on Longevity, Statistics. Joshua Pim leads on Dominance, Honours, Peak.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Bacsinszky wins: Longevity, Statistics
Pim wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours
Shareable URL · /compare/joshua-pim-vs-timea-bacsinszky
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Bacsinszky 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇮🇪 Pim | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 7 |
| 🇨🇭 Bacsinszky | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 140 | 540 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | PimRetired | BacsinszkyRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Wimbledon singles titles | 2 | — |
| Wimbledon doubles titles | 2 | — |
| Irish Championships titles | 3 | — |
| Grand Slam titles | 4 | — |
| Career span in years | 11 | — |
| WTA singles titles | — | 4 |
| Grand Slam semi-finals | — | 2 |
| Career high ranking | — | 9 |
| Olympic medals | — | 1 |
| Fed Cup ties | — | 20 |
| Dominance w25% | 78 | 70 |
| Peak w20% | 92 | 88 |
| Longevity w20% | 64 | 80 |
| Honours w20% | 80 | 74 |
| Statistics w15% | 80 | 86 |
Timea Bacsinszky leads with a GOAT score of 78.8 against 78.7 for Joshua Pim — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Pim scores higher on peak, dominance, honours. Bacsinszky leads on statistics, longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Pim: 78.7, Bacsinszky: 78.8.
Make your case for Pim vs Bacsinszky. 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.