H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 19:16 UTC
John Isner vs Di Wu H2H: 1-0
John Isner holds a 1–0 lead over Di Wu in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, John Isner leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, John Isner won the 2013 Beijing third round 5-7 7-6(4) 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 41
Right-Handed
208 cm / 6'10"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
CHN
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 3, 2013* | Beijing | ATP 500 | R32 | Hard | John Isner | 5-7 7-6(4) 6-3 | Di Wu | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| John Isner | #660 | #8 | 3,720 | 2,053 | 467 | 293 | 61.4% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 16 |
| Di Wu | #1,143 | #140 | 409 | 1,555 | 4 | 20 | 16.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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.
| John Isner | Di Wu | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2007 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #106 | 1,656 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #408 | 1,465 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 11–19 | 36.7% | #144 | 1,608 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #421 | 1,458 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 27–18 | 60.0% | #34 | 1,828 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #183 | 1,444 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #19 | 1,882 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #208 | 1,476 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #18 | 2,021 | 0 | 3 | 2014 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #295 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 38–18 | 67.9% | #14 | 1,965 | 0 | 5 | 2015 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #237 | 1,475 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #14 | 1,983 | 0 | 7 | 2016 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #159 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #19 | 1,922 | 0 | 9 | 2017 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #244 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 45–23 | 66.2% | #11 | 2,026 | 0 | 10 | 2018 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #307 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #19 | 2,019 | 0 | 10 | 2019 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #317 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #17 | 1,984 | 0 | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2018 | 32–22 | 59.3% | #10 | 1,956 | 0 | 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2019 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #19 | 1,921 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2020 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #25 | 1,845 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2021 | 23–11 | 67.6% | #24 | 1,933 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2022 | 22–16 | 57.9% | #41 | 1,891 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2023 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #172 | 1,698 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |