H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Martin Jaite vs Mel Purcell H2H: 1-0
Martin Jaite holds a 1–0 lead over Mel Purcell in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Martin Jaite leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Martin Jaite won the 1986 Indianapolis fourth round 6-0 6-1.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
ARG
Age 61
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 67
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 28, 1986 | Indianapolis | ATP 250 | R16 | Clay | Martin Jaite | 6-0 6-1 | Mel Purcell | Match data |
Career Comparison
| Player | Current | Peak | Pts | Elo | W | L | Win % | GS | 1000 | Finals | 500 | 250 | Titles |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Martin Jaite | #1,214 | #10 | 1,226 | 1,965 | 272 | 157 | 63.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 12 |
| Mel Purcell | #673 | #21 | 21 | 1,991 | 190 | 164 | 53.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
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 | Martin Jaite | Mel Purcell | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 1982 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,504 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1983 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #285 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 | 1978 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #555 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1984 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #56 | 1,678 | 0 | 0 | 1979 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #245 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1985 | 37–17 | 68.5% | #20 | 1,813 | 0 | 1 | 1980 | 19–13 | 59.4% | #27 | 1,742 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1986 | 34–15 | 69.4% | #17 | 1,828 | 0 | 3 | 1981 | 48–20 | 70.6% | #24 | 1,914 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 1987 | 43–17 | 71.7% | #14 | 1,890 | 0 | 5 | 1982 | 38–24 | 61.3% | #28 | 1,837 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 1988 | 22–19 | 53.7% | #54 | 1,731 | 0 | 5 | 1983 | 30–25 | 54.5% | #28 | 1,770 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 1989 | 46–14 | 76.7% | #11 | 1,947 | 0 | 9 | 1984 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #67 | 1,702 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 1990 | 31–19 | 62.0% | #36 | 1,767 | 0 | 11 | 1985 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #129 | 1,705 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 1991 | 24–21 | 53.3% | #46 | 1,706 | 0 | 12 | 1986 | 12–16 | 42.9% | #72 | 1,649 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 1992 | 18–19 | 48.6% | #120 | 1,678 | 0 | 12 | 1987 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #140 | 1,529 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 1993 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #245 | 1,601 | 0 | 12 | 1988 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #268 | 1,537 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1989 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #504 | 1,525 | 0 | 3 |