H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 14:16 UTC
David Pate vs Jonathan Canter H2H: 0-2
Jonathan Canter holds a 2–0 lead over David Pate in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Jonathan Canter leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Jonathan Canter won the 1986 Montreal / Toronto second round 6-2 7-5.
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
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 61
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 13, 1986* | Montreal / Toronto | Masters 1000 | R64 | Hard | Jonathan Canter | 6-2 7-5 | David Pate | Match data |
| Oct 18, 1985* | Tokyo Outdoor | ATP 250 | R16 | Hard | Jonathan Canter | 7-5 6-2 | David Pate | 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 |
| Jonathan Canter | #810 | #36 | 244 | 1,792 | 68 | 96 | 41.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Jonathan Canter | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1982 | 3–5 | 37.5% | — | 1,505 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1983 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #279 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1981 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,493 | 0 | 0 | 1984 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #225 | 1,464 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1982 | 2–5 | 28.6% | — | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 16–14 | 53.3% | #73 | 1,636 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 1983 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #203 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 | 1986 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #41 | 1,731 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1984 | 21–13 | 61.8% | #30 | 1,743 | 0 | 1 | 1987 | 5–17 | 22.7% | #169 | 1,600 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 1985 | 31–24 | 56.4% | #26 | 1,741 | 0 | 1 | 1988 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #182 | 1,582 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 1986 | 35–23 | 60.3% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 1 | 1989 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #183 | 1,532 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 1987 | 28–18 | 60.9% | #18 | 1,751 | 0 | 2 | 1990 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #191 | 1,558 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 1988 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #47 | 1,716 | 0 | 2 | 1991 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #408 | 1,539 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 1989 | 9–19 | 32.1% | #157 | 1,656 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 1990 | 16–15 | 51.6% | #94 | 1,657 | 0 | 2 | 1993 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #190 | 1,579 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 1991 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #160 | 1,595 | 0 | 2 | 1994 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #388 | 1,542 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 1992 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #396 | 1,572 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1993 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #514 | 1,547 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 1994 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #624 | 1,560 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 1995 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #911 | 1,541 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |