H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Thomas Muster vs Justin Gimelstob H2H: 0-1
Justin Gimelstob holds a 1–0 lead over Thomas Muster in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Justin Gimelstob leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Justin Gimelstob won the 1999 Scottsdale third round 6-4 7-5.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
AUT
Age 58
Left-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 49
Right-Handed
196 cm / 6'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 4, 1999* | Scottsdale | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Justin Gimelstob | 6-4 7-5 | Thomas Muster | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thomas Muster | #1,092 | #1 | 4,474 | 2,161 | 590 | 267 | 68.8% | 1 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 35 | 44 |
| Justin Gimelstob | #841 | #63 | 733 | 1,721 | 107 | 171 | 38.5% | 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 | Thomas Muster | Justin Gimelstob | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1984 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #311 | 1,533 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1985 | 9–8 | 52.9% | #98 | 1,611 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1986 | 18–16 | 52.9% | #47 | 1,740 | 0 | 1 | 1995 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #576 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1987 | 22–16 | 57.9% | #56 | 1,753 | 0 | 1 | 1996 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #152 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1988 | 47–16 | 74.6% | #16 | 1,914 | 0 | 5 | 1997 | 17–23 | 42.5% | #104 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1989 | 18–10 | 64.3% | #21 | 1,877 | 0 | 5 | 1998 | 14–15 | 48.3% | #80 | 1,661 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1990 | 45–17 | 72.6% | #7 | 1,862 | 0 | 8 | 1999 | 17–26 | 39.5% | #82 | 1,645 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1991 | 30–18 | 62.5% | #35 | 1,835 | 0 | 10 | 2000 | 14–16 | 46.7% | #97 | 1,674 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1992 | 39–22 | 63.9% | #18 | 1,793 | 0 | 13 | 2001 | 3–12 | 20.0% | #177 | 1,596 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1993 | 77–21 | 78.6% | #9 | 1,953 | 0 | 20 | 2002 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #106 | 1,619 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1994 | 54–26 | 67.5% | #16 | 1,815 | 0 | 23 | 2003 | 9–17 | 34.6% | #106 | 1,534 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1995 | 84–17 | 83.2% | #3 | 1,990 | 1 | 35 | 2004 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #162 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1996 | 65–21 | 75.6% | #5 | 1,915 | 1 | 42 | 2005 | 8–9 | 47.1% | #104 | 1,595 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 1997 | 43–23 | 65.2% | #9 | 1,820 | 1 | 44 | 2006 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #86 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 1998 | 32–20 | 61.5% | #25 | 1,800 | 1 | 44 | 2007 | 1–12 | 7.7% | #556 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 1999 | 5–11 | 31.2% | #189 | 1,674 | 1 | 44 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 42 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #980 | 1,655 | 1 | 44 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 43 | 2011 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #1075 | 1,608 | 1 | 44 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |