H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 14:16 UTC
Michael Chang vs David Pate H2H: 1-1
Michael Chang and David Pate are tied 1–1 in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Michael Chang won the 1991 Tokyo Outdoor fourth round 6-4 7-6(5).
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
–
1
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 64
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 12, 1991* | Tokyo Outdoor | ATP 250 | R16 | Hard | Michael Chang | 6-4 7-6(5) | David Pate | Match data |
| Sep 24, 1987* | Los Angeles | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | David Pate | 6-3 7-6 | Michael Chang | 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 |
| David Pate | #911 | #18 | 441 | 1,874 | 181 | 168 | 51.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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 | David Pate | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1990 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #15 | 1,917 | 1 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1991 | 47–20 | 70.1% | #15 | 2,002 | 1 | 5 | 1981 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,493 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1992 | 57–22 | 72.2% | #6 | 1,975 | 1 | 8 | 1982 | 2–5 | 28.6% | — | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1993 | 62–21 | 74.7% | #8 | 1,992 | 1 | 13 | 1983 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #203 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1994 | 66–19 | 77.6% | #6 | 2,005 | 1 | 19 | 1984 | 21–13 | 61.8% | #30 | 1,743 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 1995 | 65–19 | 77.4% | #5 | 2,008 | 1 | 23 | 1985 | 31–24 | 56.4% | #26 | 1,741 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 1996 | 63–19 | 76.8% | #2 | 1,985 | 1 | 26 | 1986 | 35–23 | 60.3% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 1997 | 53–18 | 74.6% | #3 | 1,910 | 1 | 31 | 1987 | 28–18 | 60.9% | #18 | 1,751 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 1998 | 35–16 | 68.6% | #29 | 1,838 | 1 | 33 | 1988 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #47 | 1,716 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 1999 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #50 | 1,788 | 1 | 33 | 1989 | 9–19 | 32.1% | #157 | 1,656 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2000 | 42–25 | 62.7% | #32 | 1,818 | 1 | 34 | 1990 | 16–15 | 51.6% | #94 | 1,657 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2001 | 16–21 | 43.2% | #94 | 1,701 | 1 | 34 | 1991 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #160 | 1,595 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2002 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #124 | 1,625 | 1 | 34 | 1992 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #396 | 1,572 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 2003 | 2–10 | 16.7% | #383 | 1,551 | 1 | 34 | 1993 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #514 | 1,547 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1994 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #624 | 1,560 | 0 | 2 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #911 | 1,541 | 0 | 2 |