Who is better, Williams or Kafelnikov?
R. Norris Williams leads with a GOAT score of 83.0 against 83.0 for Yevgeny Kafelnikov — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently scores R. Norris Williams and Yevgeny Kafelnikov level at 83.0. R. Norris Williams leads on Longevity. Yevgeny Kafelnikov leads on Dominance, Honours, Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Williams wins: Longevity
Kafelnikov wins: Dominance, Honours, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/r-norris-williams-vs-yevgeny-kafelnikov
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Williams 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 Williams | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 8 | 18 |
| 🇷🇺 Kafelnikov | 0 | 0 | 55 | 117 | 260 | 682 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | WilliamsRetired | KafelnikovRetired |
|---|---|---|
| US Championships titles | 2 | — |
| Olympic golds | 1 | — |
| Davis Cup titles | 5 | — |
| Grand Slam doubles titles | 2 | — |
| Career span in years | 15 | — |
| Major singles titles | — | 2 |
| Olympic gold medals | — | 1 |
| Major doubles titles | — | 4 |
| Career singles titles | — | 26 |
| Weeks at world number one | — | 6 |
| Dominance w25% | 78 | 80 |
| Peak w20% | 90 | 90 |
| Longevity w20% | 84 | 78 |
| Honours w20% | 82 | 84 |
| Statistics w15% | 82 | 84 |
R. Norris Williams leads with a GOAT score of 83.0 against 83.0 for Yevgeny Kafelnikov — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Kafelnikov scores higher on dominance, honours, statistics. Williams leads on longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Williams: 83.0, Kafelnikov: 83.0.
Make your case for Williams vs Kafelnikov. 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.