Who is better, Jha or Hasegawa?
Kanak Jha leads with a GOAT score of 82.0 against 82.0 for Nobuhiko Hasegawa — 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 Kanak Jha and Nobuhiko Hasegawa level at 82.0. Kanak Jha leads on Longevity, Statistics. Nobuhiko Hasegawa leads on Dominance, Peak, Honours.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Jha wins: Longevity, Statistics
Hasegawa wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours
Shareable URL · /compare/kanak-jha-vs-nobuhiko-hasegawa
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Jha 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 Jha | 0 | 0 | 50 | 105 | 303 | 640 |
| 🇯🇵 Hasegawa | 0 | 0 | 58 | 126 | 388 | 702 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | JhaActive | HasegawaRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Pan American medals | 4 | — |
| Olympic appearances | 3 | — |
| United States titles | 3 | — |
| World Championship appearances | 5 | — |
| World top-30 ranking peaks | 1 | — |
| World Championship singles titles | — | 1 |
| World team titles | — | 2 |
| World Championship medals | — | 5 |
| Asian Championship titles | — | 2 |
| Years at the top level | — | 11 |
| Dominance w25% | 78 | 82 |
| Peak w20% | 88 | 92 |
| Longevity w20% | 80 | 70 |
| Honours w20% | 80 | 84 |
| Statistics w15% | 86 | 82 |
Kanak Jha leads with a GOAT score of 82.0 against 82.0 for Nobuhiko Hasegawa — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Hasegawa scores higher on peak, dominance, honours. Jha leads on statistics, longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Jha: 82.0, Hasegawa: 82.0.
Make your case for Jha vs Hasegawa. 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.