H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 14:16 UTC
Michael Chang vs Carl Limberger H2H: 1-0
Michael Chang holds a 1–0 lead over Carl Limberger in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Michael Chang leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Michael Chang won the 1988 Scottsdale third round 6-3 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.
USA
Age 54
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
AUS
Age 62
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 6, 1988* | Scottsdale | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Michael Chang | 6-3 6-2 | Carl Limberger | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michael Chang | #1,039 | #2 | 4,065 | 2,110 | 648 | 303 | 68.1% | 1 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 34 |
| Carl Limberger | #856 | #71 | 262 | 1,598 | 34 | 76 | 30.9% | 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.
| Age | Michael Chang | Carl Limberger | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1987 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #163 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1988 | 23–13 | 63.9% | #30 | 1,842 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1989 | 45–17 | 72.6% | #5 | 1,971 | 1 | 3 | 1981 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,486 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1990 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #15 | 1,917 | 1 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1991 | 47–20 | 70.1% | #15 | 2,002 | 1 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1992 | 57–22 | 72.2% | #6 | 1,975 | 1 | 8 | 1984 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #137 | 1,447 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1993 | 62–21 | 74.7% | #8 | 1,992 | 1 | 13 | 1985 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #234 | 1,419 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1994 | 66–19 | 77.6% | #6 | 2,005 | 1 | 19 | 1986 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #108 | 1,407 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1995 | 65–19 | 77.4% | #5 | 2,008 | 1 | 23 | 1987 | 12–22 | 35.3% | #147 | 1,459 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1996 | 63–19 | 76.8% | #2 | 1,985 | 1 | 26 | 1988 | 7–13 | 35.0% | #130 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1997 | 53–18 | 74.6% | #3 | 1,910 | 1 | 31 | 1989 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #239 | 1,497 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1998 | 35–16 | 68.6% | #29 | 1,838 | 1 | 33 | 1990 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #235 | 1,553 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1999 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #50 | 1,788 | 1 | 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2000 | 42–25 | 62.7% | #32 | 1,818 | 1 | 34 | 1992 | 3–12 | 20.0% | #182 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2001 | 16–21 | 43.2% | #94 | 1,701 | 1 | 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2002 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #124 | 1,625 | 1 | 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2003 | 2–10 | 16.7% | #383 | 1,551 | 1 | 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |