Who is better, Little or Elkington?
Lawson Little leads with a GOAT score of 82.1 against 81.9 for Steve Elkington — a gap of 0.2 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Lawson Little above Steve Elkington: 82.1 vs 81.9. Lawson Little leads on Dominance, Honours, Peak. Steve Elkington leads on Longevity, Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Little wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours
Elkington wins: Longevity, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/lawson-little-vs-steve-elkington
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Little leads in 3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 Little | 0 | 0 | 35 | 82 | 295 | 649 |
| 🇦🇺 Elkington | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | LittleRetired | ElkingtonRetired |
|---|---|---|
| US Open titles | 1 | — |
| Amateur Championships | 2 | — |
| US Amateur titles | 2 | — |
| PGA Tour wins | 8 | 10 |
| Consecutive amateur match wins | 31 | — |
| Major titles | — | 1 |
| Players Championship wins | — | 2 |
| Presidents Cup appearances | — | 5 |
| Career-high world ranking | — | 4 |
| Dominance w25% | 82 | 74 |
| Peak w20% | 92 | 90 |
| Longevity w20% | 74 | 86 |
| Honours w20% | 82 | 78 |
| Statistics w15% | 80 | 84 |
Lawson Little leads with a GOAT score of 82.1 against 81.9 for Steve Elkington — a gap of 0.2 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Elkington scores higher on statistics, longevity. Little leads on peak, dominance, honours.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Little: 82.1, Elkington: 81.9.
Make your case for Little vs Elkington. 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.