H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
David Pate vs Bill Scanlon H2H: 3-1
David Pate holds a 3–1 lead over Bill Scanlon in their ATP head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while David Pate leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Bill Scanlon won the 1989 Tokyo Outdoor second round 6-7 6-2 6-3.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
USA
Age 64
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
3
–
1
4 main draw meetings
USA
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 19, 1989* | Tokyo Outdoor | ATP 250 | R64 | Hard | Bill Scanlon | 6-7 6-2 6-3 | David Pate | Match data |
| Jun 12, 1987* | Queen's Club | ATP 250 | R16 | Grass | David Pate | 7-6 7-6 | Bill Scanlon | Match data |
| Apr 4, 1987* | Chicago | ATP 250 | SF | Carpet | David Pate | 6-3 6-2 | Bill Scanlon | Match data |
| Oct 15, 1986* | Tokyo Outdoor | ATP 250 | R64 | Hard | David Pate | 7-5 6-4 | Bill Scanlon | Match data |
* Estimated match date where the exact historical date is unavailable.
Career Comparison
| Player | Current | Peak | Pts | Elo | W | L | Win % | GS | 1000 | Finals | 500 | 250 | Titles |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| David Pate | #911 | #18 | 441 | 1,874 | 181 | 168 | 51.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Bill Scanlon | #996 | #9 | 56 | 2,017 | 307 | 259 | 54.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
Career Progression by Age
Seasons are aligned by the age each player spent most of that calendar year. GS and Titles are cumulative career totals through that season.
| Age | David Pate | Bill Scanlon | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | 1981 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,493 | 0 | 0 | 1976 | 15–17 | 46.9% | #52 | 1,651 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1982 | 2–5 | 28.6% | — | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | 1977 | 36–30 | 54.5% | #37 | 1,723 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1983 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #203 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 | 1978 | 14–21 | 40.0% | #95 | 1,764 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1984 | 21–13 | 61.8% | #30 | 1,743 | 0 | 1 | 1979 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #41 | 1,839 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 1985 | 31–24 | 56.4% | #26 | 1,741 | 0 | 1 | 1980 | 37–29 | 56.1% | #25 | 1,808 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 1986 | 35–23 | 60.3% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 1 | 1981 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #30 | 1,879 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 1987 | 28–18 | 60.9% | #18 | 1,751 | 0 | 2 | 1982 | 31–24 | 56.4% | #71 | 1,852 | 0 | 6 |
| 26 | 1988 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #47 | 1,716 | 0 | 2 | 1983 | 42–21 | 66.7% | #12 | 1,923 | 0 | 6 |
| 27 | 1989 | 9–19 | 32.1% | #157 | 1,656 | 0 | 2 | 1984 | 20–17 | 54.1% | #57 | 1,828 | 0 | 6 |
| 28 | 1990 | 16–15 | 51.6% | #94 | 1,657 | 0 | 2 | 1985 | 7–13 | 35.0% | #180 | 1,668 | 0 | 6 |
| 29 | 1991 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #160 | 1,595 | 0 | 2 | 1986 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #85 | 1,656 | 0 | 7 |
| 30 | 1992 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #396 | 1,572 | 0 | 2 | 1987 | 16–17 | 48.5% | #99 | 1,562 | 0 | 7 |
| 31 | 1993 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #514 | 1,547 | 0 | 2 | 1988 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #224 | 1,534 | 0 | 7 |
| 32 | 1994 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #624 | 1,560 | 0 | 2 | 1989 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #320 | 1,598 | 0 | 7 |
| 33 | 1995 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #911 | 1,541 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |