H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Guy Forget vs Tomas Smid H2H: 1-3
Tomas Smid holds a 3–1 lead over Guy Forget in their ATP head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on clay, while Tomas Smid leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Tomas Smid won the 1988 Toulouse fourth round 3-6 6-3 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.
FRA
Age 61
Left-Handed
190 cm / 6'3"
H2H
1
–
3
4 main draw meetings
CZE
Age 70
Right-Handed
190 cm / 6'3"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 14, 1988* | Toulouse | ATP 250 | R16 | Hard | Tomas Smid | 3-6 6-3 6-4 | Guy Forget | Match data |
| Mar 2, 1988* | Indian Wells | Masters 1000 | R64 | Hard | Tomas Smid | 6-3 6-4 | Guy Forget | Match data |
| Jul 11, 1985* | Gstaad | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Guy Forget | 6-3 6-7 6-0 | Tomas Smid | Match data |
| Jul 8, 1983* | Gstaad | ATP 250 | R16 | Clay | Tomas Smid | 7-5 6-4 | Guy Forget | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guy Forget | #1,367 | #4 | 2,392 | 2,038 | 356 | 279 | 56.1% | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 11 |
| Tomas Smid | #975 | #11 | 28 | 1,998 | 497 | 318 | 61.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 |
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 | Guy Forget | Tomas Smid | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 1982 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #70 | 1,660 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1983 | 7–23 | 23.3% | #94 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1984 | 17–12 | 58.6% | #36 | 1,714 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1985 | 18–21 | 46.2% | #61 | 1,723 | 0 | 0 | 1976 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #154 | 1,542 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1986 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #25 | 1,791 | 0 | 1 | 1977 | 16–18 | 47.1% | #67 | 1,637 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1987 | 20–20 | 50.0% | #54 | 1,750 | 0 | 1 | 1978 | 36–25 | 59.0% | #36 | 1,799 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 1988 | 21–17 | 55.3% | #48 | 1,769 | 0 | 1 | 1979 | 50–25 | 66.7% | #27 | 1,870 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 1989 | 15–10 | 60.0% | #36 | 1,798 | 0 | 2 | 1980 | 45–21 | 68.2% | #23 | 1,950 | 0 | 4 |
| 25 | 1990 | 38–23 | 62.3% | #16 | 1,799 | 0 | 3 | 1981 | 54–28 | 65.9% | #28 | 1,864 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 1991 | 57–19 | 75.0% | #7 | 1,985 | 0 | 9 | 1982 | 62–28 | 68.9% | #24 | 1,901 | 0 | 7 |
| 27 | 1992 | 42–21 | 66.7% | #11 | 1,978 | 0 | 10 | 1983 | 59–30 | 66.3% | #17 | 1,902 | 0 | 9 |
| 28 | 1993 | 8–8 | 50.0% | #158 | 1,861 | 0 | 10 | 1984 | 46–27 | 63.0% | #16 | 1,840 | 0 | 9 |
| 29 | 1994 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #40 | 1,840 | 0 | 10 | 1985 | 47–27 | 63.5% | #19 | 1,804 | 0 | 10 |
| 30 | 1995 | 19–24 | 44.2% | #71 | 1,694 | 0 | 10 | 1986 | 28–24 | 53.8% | #54 | 1,721 | 0 | 10 |
| 31 | 1996 | 24–23 | 51.1% | #51 | 1,690 | 0 | 11 | 1987 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #31 | 1,729 | 0 | 10 |
| 32 | 1997 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #1121 | 1,599 | 0 | 11 | 1988 | 17–23 | 42.5% | #115 | 1,656 | 0 | 10 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1989 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #453 | 1,537 | 0 | 10 |