H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Michael Chang vs Henrik Holm H2H: 2-1
Michael Chang holds a 2–1 lead over Henrik Holm in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Michael Chang leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Michael Chang won the 1995 Tokyo Indoor semifinal 5-7 6-4 6-4.
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
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
SWE
Age 57
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 14, 1995* | Tokyo Indoor | ATP 250 | SF | Carpet | Michael Chang | 5-7 6-4 6-4 | Henrik Holm | Match data |
| Aug 25, 1994* | Long Island | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Michael Chang | 6-0 7-6(4) | Henrik Holm | Match data |
| Apr 2, 1994* | Osaka | ATP 250 | QF | Hard | Henrik Holm | 2-6 7-5 6-3 | 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 |
| Henrik Holm | #585 | #17 | 1,447 | 1,853 | 96 | 108 | 47.1% | 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 | Henrik Holm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1992 | 57–22 | 72.2% | #6 | 1,975 | 1 | 8 | 1989 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #228 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1993 | 62–21 | 74.7% | #8 | 1,992 | 1 | 13 | 1990 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #137 | 1,527 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1994 | 66–19 | 77.6% | #6 | 2,005 | 1 | 19 | 1991 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #131 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1995 | 65–19 | 77.4% | #5 | 2,008 | 1 | 23 | 1992 | 25–15 | 62.5% | #19 | 1,814 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1996 | 63–19 | 76.8% | #2 | 1,985 | 1 | 26 | 1993 | 25–29 | 46.3% | #48 | 1,685 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1997 | 53–18 | 74.6% | #3 | 1,910 | 1 | 31 | 1994 | 18–24 | 42.9% | #67 | 1,649 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1998 | 35–16 | 68.6% | #29 | 1,838 | 1 | 33 | 1995 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #82 | 1,704 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1999 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #50 | 1,788 | 1 | 33 | 1996 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #476 | 1,661 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2000 | 42–25 | 62.7% | #32 | 1,818 | 1 | 34 | 1997 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #161 | 1,603 | 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |