H2H data updated: 2026-07-25 23:01 UTC
Ronald Agenor vs Leonardo Lavalle H2H: 0-1
Leonardo Lavalle holds a 1–0 lead over Ronald Agenor in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Leonardo Lavalle leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Leonardo Lavalle won the 1988 Seoul Olympics second round 3-6 6-3 6-2 2-1 RET.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
HAI
Age 61
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
MEX
Age 59
Left-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 23, 1988* | Seoul Olympics | Olympics | R64 | Hard | Leonardo Lavalle | 3-6 6-3 6-2 2-1 (ret.) | Ronald Agenor | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ronald Agenor | #1,507 | #22 | 984 | 1,896 | 215 | 253 | 45.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Leonardo Lavalle | #968 | #51 | 483 | 1,728 | 64 | 98 | 39.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Ronald Agenor | Leonardo Lavalle | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1985 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #87 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1986 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #105 | 1,588 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1984 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #418 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #224 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1985 | 17–14 | 54.8% | #49 | 1,657 | 0 | 0 | 1988 | 10–8 | 55.6% | #64 | 1,654 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1986 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #74 | 1,672 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #132 | 1,649 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1987 | 25–20 | 55.6% | #44 | 1,736 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #183 | 1,596 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1988 | 24–18 | 57.1% | #28 | 1,758 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 5–3 | 62.5% | #133 | 1,658 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 1989 | 24–17 | 58.5% | #37 | 1,766 | 0 | 1 | 1992 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #99 | 1,645 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 1990 | 33–25 | 56.9% | #29 | 1,816 | 0 | 3 | 1993 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #309 | 1,596 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 1991 | 16–27 | 37.2% | #74 | 1,643 | 0 | 3 | 1994 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #213 | 1,568 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 1992 | 5–16 | 23.8% | #132 | 1,538 | 0 | 3 | 1995 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #362 | 1,565 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 1993 | 17–25 | 40.5% | #58 | 1,603 | 0 | 3 | 1996 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #313 | 1,570 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 1994 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #71 | 1,580 | 0 | 3 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #439 | 1,561 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 1995 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #146 | 1,586 | 0 | 3 | 1998 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #400 | 1,569 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | 1996 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #326 | 1,525 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 1998 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #237 | 1,530 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 1999 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #96 | 1,521 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2000 | 6–16 | 27.3% | #137 | 1,430 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2001 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #188 | 1,466 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |