H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 19:16 UTC
Ivo Karlovic vs Guillermo Canas H2H: 0-1
Guillermo Canas holds a 1–0 lead over Ivo Karlovic in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Guillermo Canas leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Guillermo Canas won the 2002 Chennai fourth round 7-5 6-2.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
CRO
Age 47
Right-Handed
211 cm / 6'11"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
ARG
Age 48
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 4, 2002* | Chennai | ATP 250 | R16 | Hard | Guillermo Canas | 7-5 6-2 | Ivo Karlovic | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ivo Karlovic | #1,066 | #14 | 2,295 | 1,998 | 357 | 333 | 51.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 |
| Guillermo Canas | #1,110 | #8 | 2,075 | 2,008 | 244 | 188 | 56.5% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 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 | Ivo Karlovic | Guillermo Canas | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #183 | 1,462 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #129 | 1,461 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 6–14 | 30.0% | #95 | 1,481 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1999 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #71 | 1,575 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #193 | 1,500 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #231 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2002 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #201 | 1,454 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 45–21 | 68.2% | #15 | 1,840 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2003 | 9–7 | 56.2% | #73 | 1,666 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 41–22 | 65.1% | #15 | 1,857 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2004 | 16–24 | 40.0% | #61 | 1,667 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #272 | 1,805 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2005 | 17–22 | 43.6% | #70 | 1,739 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 40–21 | 65.6% | #12 | 1,898 | 0 | 6 |
| 27 | 2006 | 16–18 | 47.1% | #98 | 1,632 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 22–11 | 66.7% | #102 | 1,889 | 0 | 6 |
| 28 | 2007 | 45–21 | 68.2% | #22 | 1,940 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2008 | 29–25 | 53.7% | #26 | 1,815 | 0 | 4 | 2007 | 38–21 | 64.4% | #15 | 1,821 | 0 | 7 |
| 30 | 2009 | 21–22 | 48.8% | #37 | 1,795 | 0 | 4 | 2008 | 21–19 | 52.5% | #79 | 1,690 | 0 | 7 |
| 31 | 2010 | 16–9 | 64.0% | #73 | 1,864 | 0 | 4 | 2009 | 5–13 | 27.8% | #191 | 1,628 | 0 | 7 |
| 32 | 2011 | 16–20 | 44.4% | #56 | 1,819 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2012 | 14–16 | 46.7% | #100 | 1,768 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2013 | 15–13 | 53.6% | #78 | 1,772 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2014 | 32–27 | 54.2% | #27 | 1,853 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2015 | 38–25 | 60.3% | #23 | 1,916 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2016 | 32–22 | 59.3% | #20 | 1,970 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2017 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #80 | 1,770 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 39 | 2018 | 11–16 | 40.7% | #100 | 1,644 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 40 | 2019 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #95 | 1,668 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 41 | 2020 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #147 | 1,615 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 42 | 2021 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #279 | 1,623 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |