H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
Sergiy Stakhovsky vs Ruben Bemelmans H2H: 1-0
Sergiy Stakhovsky holds a 1–0 lead over Ruben Bemelmans in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Sergiy Stakhovsky leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Sergiy Stakhovsky won the 2013 Chennai third round 7-6(7) 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.
UKR
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
BEL
Age 38
Left-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 3, 2013* | Chennai | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Sergiy Stakhovsky | 7-6(7) 7-6(5) | Ruben Bemelmans | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sergiy Stakhovsky | #678 | #31 | 1,263 | 1,839 | 145 | 195 | 42.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| Ruben Bemelmans | #1,092 | #84 | 628 | 1,755 | 23 | 49 | 31.9% | 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.
| Sergiy Stakhovsky | Ruben Bemelmans | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2004 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #335 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #178 | 1,597 | 0 | 0 |
| 2005 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #184 | 1,528 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #160 | 1,634 | 0 | 0 |
| 2006 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #195 | 1,526 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #111 | 1,649 | 0 | 0 |
| 2007 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #199 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #148 | 1,638 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #92 | 1,614 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #108 | 1,695 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 14–13 | 51.9% | #60 | 1,750 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #167 | 1,644 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 24–24 | 50.0% | #46 | 1,743 | 0 | 4 | 2017 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #118 | 1,693 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 22–26 | 45.8% | #62 | 1,707 | 0 | 4 | 2018 | 5–14 | 26.3% | #117 | 1,686 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 13–26 | 33.3% | #103 | 1,739 | 0 | 4 | 2019 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #260 | 1,590 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #98 | 1,679 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2014 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #58 | 1,686 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2015 | 20–25 | 44.4% | #62 | 1,715 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2016 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #109 | 1,693 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2017 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #122 | 1,728 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2018 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #134 | 1,649 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2019 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #150 | 1,576 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #202 | 1,568 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2021 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #220 | 1,530 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |