Who is better, Batten or Al-Asmari?
Saad Al-Asmari leads with a GOAT score of 84.0 against 83.9 for Kim Batten — 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 Saad Al-Asmari above Kim Batten: 84.0 vs 83.9. Saad Al-Asmari leads on Longevity. Kim Batten leads on Peak, Statistics, Dominance.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Al-Asmari wins: Longevity
Batten wins: Dominance, Peak, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/kim-batten-vs-saad-al-asmari
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Al-Asmari 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 Batten | 0 | 0 | 55.2 | 109.6 | 270.29 | 486.61 |
| 🇸🇦 Al-Asmari | 0 | 0 | 52 | 110 | 317 | 661 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | BattenRetired | Al-AsmariRetired |
|---|---|---|
| World Championship golds | 1 | — |
| World records | 1 | — |
| Olympic medals | 1 | — |
| 400 m hurdles best | 52.61 | — |
| US titles | 3 | — |
| Asian Games gold medals | — | 2 |
| Asian Championship gold medals | — | 3 |
| Personal best (min:s) | — | 8.11 |
| Olympic appearances | — | 3 |
| World Championship finals | — | 2 |
| Dominance w25% | 80 | 78 |
| Peak w20% | 94 | 88 |
| Longevity w20% | 74 | 86 |
| Honours w20% | 84 | 84 |
| Statistics w15% | 90 | 86 |
Saad Al-Asmari leads with a GOAT score of 84.0 against 83.9 for Kim Batten — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Batten scores higher on peak, dominance, statistics. Al-Asmari leads on longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Batten: 83.9, Al-Asmari: 84.0.
Make your case for Batten vs Al-Asmari. 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.