Who is better, Abramov or Haneef-Park?
Tayyiba Haneef-Park leads with a GOAT score of 85.7 against 85.6 for Pavel Abramov — 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 Tayyiba Haneef-Park above Pavel Abramov: 85.7 vs 85.6. Tayyiba Haneef-Park leads on Dominance, Honours. Pavel Abramov leads on Peak, Longevity.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Haneef-Park wins: Dominance, Honours
Abramov wins: Peak, Longevity
Shareable URL · /compare/pavel-abramov-vs-tayyiba-haneef-park
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Haneef-Park 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇷🇺 Abramov | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 18 | 47 |
| 🇺🇸 Haneef-Park | 0 | 0 | 52 | 110 | 319 | 664 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | AbramovRetired | Haneef-ParkRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Olympic golds | 1 | — |
| Olympic medals | 2 | 2 |
| World League titles | 3 | — |
| European Championship titles | 1 | — |
| Champions League titles | 2 | — |
| World Grand Prix titles | — | 2 |
| World Championship medals | — | 1 |
| Olympic appearances | — | 3 |
| NORCECA titles | — | 2 |
| Dominance w25% | 80 | 82 |
| Peak w20% | 92 | 90 |
| Longevity w20% | 86 | 84 |
| Honours w20% | 84 | 86 |
| Statistics w15% | 88 | 88 |
Tayyiba Haneef-Park leads with a GOAT score of 85.7 against 85.6 for Pavel Abramov — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Abramov scores higher on peak, longevity. Haneef-Park leads on dominance, honours.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Abramov: 85.6, Haneef-Park: 85.7.
Make your case for Abramov vs Haneef-Park. 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.