Who is better, Ma Long or Hoffmann?
Ma Long leads with a GOAT score of 97.3 against 20.9 for Sylvia Hoffmann — a gap of 76.4 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
AthletesTeams
Ma Long vs Hoffmann
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Ma Long above Sylvia Hoffmann: 97.3 vs 20.9. Ma Long leads on Dominance, Honours, Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →GOAT verdictgoatrank.world
Ma LongWinner
97.3Ma Long wins: Dominance, Peak, Longevity, Honours, Statistics
Hoffmann
20.9Hoffmann wins: no category outright
Candidates
Locked to Table TennisShareable URL · /compare/ma-long-vs-nl-sylvia-hoffmann
Time range
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Category radar
Verdict
Weighted GOAT score
🇨🇳 Ma Long
97.3
Ma Long leads in 5 of 5 weighted categories.
Hoffmann — Insufficient verified career data to calculate a reliable GOAT Score.
1. Ma Long
2. Sylvia Hoffmann
Category breakdown
Season form · Form index per season
Career timeline · Form index per season
Cumulative output season by season — the shape of each career against the other.
GOAT pace tracker
Through age 21 · Form index per season
1. 🇨🇳 Ma Long7 titles
2 seasons by age 21 · 3.5 per season
Setting the pace at age 21
No verified birth date for Hoffmann — shown in the pro-debut view instead.
Every career is cut at the season the athlete turned 21, so a rookie today is measured against exactly what a legend had banked by the same birthday.
Fan vote — data vs the people
GOAT Rank · the data
Ma Long97.3
Hoffmann20.9
FAQ
Where does Hoffmann beat Ma Long?
Hoffmann does not lead any of the five categories; Ma Long is ahead or level on all of them.
How is the Ma Long vs Hoffmann score calculated?
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Ma Long: 97.3, Hoffmann: 20.9.
What do you think?
0 commentsMake your case for Ma Long vs Hoffmann. 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.