Who is better, Ishikawa or Lin S.?
Lin Shidong leads with a GOAT score of 82.7 against 82.6 for Kasumi Ishikawa — 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 Lin Shidong above Kasumi Ishikawa: 82.7 vs 82.6. Lin Shidong leads on Dominance, Peak, Statistics. Kasumi Ishikawa leads on Longevity.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Lin S. wins: Dominance, Peak, Statistics
Ishikawa wins: Longevity
Shareable URL · /compare/kasumi-ishikawa-vs-lin-shidong
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Lin S. leads in 4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇯🇵 Ishikawa | 0 | 0 | 52 | 114 | 266 | 720 |
| 🇨🇳 Lin S. | 0 | 0 | 62 | 142 | 330 | 330 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | IshikawaRetired | Lin S.Active |
|---|---|---|
| Olympic medals | 3 | — |
| Japanese national titles | 9 | — |
| World Championship medals | 4 | — |
| Career high world ranking | 3 | — |
| Years at the top level | 16 | — |
| World Championship singles titles | — | 1 |
| WTT Grand Smash titles | — | 3 |
| Weeks at world number one | — | 60 |
| World Cup titles | — | 1 |
| Seasons on the pro tour | — | 4 |
| Dominance w25% | 76 | 86 |
| Peak w20% | 86 | 94 |
| Longevity w20% | 88 | 62 |
| Honours w20% | 84 | 84 |
| Statistics w15% | 80 | 88 |
Lin Shidong leads with a GOAT score of 82.7 against 82.6 for Kasumi Ishikawa — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Ishikawa scores higher on longevity. Lin S. leads on peak, dominance, statistics.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Ishikawa: 82.6, Lin S.: 82.7.
Make your case for Ishikawa vs Lin S.. 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.