H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Renzo Furlan vs Jaime Oncins H2H: 2-2
Renzo Furlan and Jaime Oncins are tied 2–2 in their ATP head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Jaime Oncins leads 2–1 on clay, while Renzo Furlan leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Renzo Furlan won the 1994 San Jose fourth round 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.
ITA
Age 56
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
2
–
2
4 main draw meetings
BRA
Age 56
Right-Handed
196 cm / 6'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 4, 1994* | San Jose | ATP 250 | R16 | Hard | Renzo Furlan | 7-6(4) 6-3 | Jaime Oncins | Match data |
| Sep 30, 1993* | Palermo | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Renzo Furlan | 6-4 7-5 | Jaime Oncins | Match data |
| Jun 18, 1992* | Genova | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Jaime Oncins | 6-2 7-5 | Renzo Furlan | Match data |
| May 24, 1992* | Bologna | ATP 250 | F | Clay | Jaime Oncins | 6-2 6-4 | Renzo Furlan | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Renzo Furlan | #1,479 | #19 | 1,235 | 1,844 | 209 | 231 | 47.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Jaime Oncins | #1,034 | #34 | 773 | 1,796 | 61 | 86 | 41.5% | 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 | Renzo Furlan | Jaime Oncins | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1988 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #314 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1989 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #222 | 1,500 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #263 | 1,471 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1990 | 9–8 | 52.9% | #77 | 1,597 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #113 | 1,443 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1991 | 22–26 | 45.8% | #52 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #64 | 1,677 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1992 | 24–28 | 46.2% | #53 | 1,667 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 24–18 | 57.1% | #48 | 1,765 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 1993 | 26–28 | 48.1% | #72 | 1,681 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 11–23 | 32.4% | #133 | 1,578 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 1994 | 30–27 | 52.6% | #41 | 1,682 | 0 | 2 | 1994 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #230 | 1,502 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 1995 | 37–31 | 54.4% | #29 | 1,727 | 0 | 2 | 1995 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #222 | 1,505 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 1996 | 29–26 | 52.7% | #40 | 1,695 | 0 | 2 | 1996 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #160 | 1,488 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 1997 | 18–27 | 40.0% | #100 | 1,580 | 0 | 2 | 1997 | 0–6 | 0.0% | #166 | 1,436 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 1998 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #144 | 1,514 | 0 | 2 | 1998 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #223 | 1,448 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 1999 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #225 | 1,542 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2000 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #236 | 1,569 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2001 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #190 | 1,554 | 0 | 2 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1031 | 1,435 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | 2002 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #186 | 1,540 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2003 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #194 | 1,548 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |