H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
David Prinosil vs Hyung-Taik Lee H2H: 1-0
David Prinosil holds a 1–0 lead over Hyung-Taik Lee in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, David Prinosil leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, David Prinosil won the 2001 Wimbledon first round 6-7(5) 6-2 6-4 6-4.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
GER
Age 53
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
KOR
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 27, 2001* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | David Prinosil | 6-7(5) 6-2 6-4 6-4 | Hyung-Taik Lee | 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 Prinosil | #1,091 | #28 | 1,040 | 1,800 | 165 | 208 | 44.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Hyung-Taik Lee | #1,256 | #36 | 864 | 1,798 | 120 | 153 | 44.0% | 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.
| David Prinosil | Hyung-Taik Lee | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 1992 | 9–9 | 50.0% | #125 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #241 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 1993 | 16–25 | 39.0% | #77 | 1,633 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #283 | 1,497 | 0 | 0 |
| 1994 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #130 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #191 | 1,497 | 0 | 0 |
| 1995 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #50 | 1,708 | 0 | 1 | 2000 | 7–4 | 63.6% | #90 | 1,648 | 0 | 0 |
| 1996 | 24–23 | 51.1% | #39 | 1,779 | 0 | 2 | 2001 | 9–19 | 32.1% | #116 | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 1997 | 16–26 | 38.1% | #89 | 1,633 | 0 | 2 | 2002 | 11–14 | 44.0% | #87 | 1,626 | 0 | 0 |
| 1998 | 20–25 | 44.4% | #78 | 1,622 | 0 | 2 | 2003 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #56 | 1,613 | 0 | 1 |
| 1999 | 22–23 | 48.9% | #66 | 1,672 | 0 | 2 | 2004 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #59 | 1,668 | 0 | 1 |
| 2000 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #38 | 1,788 | 0 | 3 | 2005 | 10–19 | 34.5% | #107 | 1,618 | 0 | 1 |
| 2001 | 7–22 | 24.1% | #132 | 1,606 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #49 | 1,735 | 0 | 1 |
| 2002 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #229 | 1,593 | 0 | 3 | 2007 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #51 | 1,769 | 0 | 1 |
| 2003 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #276 | 1,521 | 0 | 3 | 2008 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #107 | 1,629 | 0 | 1 |
| 2004 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1063 | 1,515 | 0 | 3 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #871 | 1,597 | 0 | 1 |