H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC

Tommy Haas vs Ivo Karlovic H2H: 2-4

Ivo Karlovic holds a 4–2 lead over Tommy Haas in their ATP head-to-head. Across 6 main-draw meetings, Ivo Karlovic leads 3–0 on clay, while Tommy Haas leads 2–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Tommy Haas won the 2009 Canada Masters second round 4-6 7-6(3) 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.

Tommy Haas
GER Age 48 Right-Handed 188 cm / 6'2"
H2H
2 – 4
6 main draw meetings
Ivo Karlovic
CRO Age 47 Right-Handed 211 cm / 6'11"

H2H Match Log

DateTournamentCategoryRoundSurfaceWinnerScoreLoserMatch
Aug 12, 2009* Canada Masters Masters 1000 R64 Hard Tommy Haas #20 4-6 7-6(3) 6-4 Ivo Karlovic #30 Match data
Oct 13, 2007* Stockholm ATP 250 SF Hard Ivo Karlovic #25 6-4 6-3 Tommy Haas #12 Match data
Apr 14, 2007* Houston ATP 250 QF Clay Ivo Karlovic #108 7-6(7) 6-4 Tommy Haas #10 Match data
May 4, 2006* Munich ATP 250 R32 Clay Ivo Karlovic #53 6-3 7-6(3) Tommy Haas #25 Match data
Jul 28, 2005* Los Angeles ATP 250 R32 Hard Tommy Haas #27 6-4 6-4 Ivo Karlovic #74 Match data
May 5, 2004* Rome Masters Masters 1000 R64 Clay Ivo Karlovic #70 7-5 4-6 7-6(5) Tommy Haas #125 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
Tommy Haas #616 #2 3,030 2,103 533 330 61.8% 0 1 0 3 11 15
Ivo Karlovic #1,066 #14 2,295 1,998 357 333 51.7% 0 0 0 0 8 8

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 Tommy Haas Ivo Karlovic
YrW-LWin %RankEloGSTitles YrW-LWin %RankEloGSTitles
18 1996 4–3 57.1% #170 1,587 0 0 — — — — — — —
19 1997 22–17 56.4% #45 1,721 0 0 — — — — — — —
20 1998 34–26 56.7% #34 1,840 0 0 — — — — — — —
21 1999 45–23 66.2% #11 1,859 0 1 — — — — — — —
22 2000 27–20 57.4% #23 1,777 0 1 2001 0–1 0.0% #193 1,500 0 0
23 2001 53–21 71.6% #8 2,009 0 5 2002 1–2 33.3% #201 1,454 0 0
24 2002 43–22 66.2% #11 1,849 0 5 2003 9–7 56.2% #73 1,666 0 0
25 — — — — — — — 2004 16–24 40.0% #61 1,667 0 0
26 2004 35–18 66.0% #17 1,909 0 7 2005 17–22 43.6% #70 1,739 0 0
27 2005 28–21 57.1% #45 1,766 0 7 2006 16–18 47.1% #98 1,632 0 0
28 2006 48–19 71.6% #11 1,893 0 10 2007 45–21 68.2% #22 1,940 0 3
29 2007 36–17 67.9% #12 1,892 0 11 2008 29–25 53.7% #26 1,815 0 4
30 2008 18–15 54.5% #82 1,855 0 11 2009 21–22 48.8% #37 1,795 0 4
31 2009 31–18 63.3% #18 1,913 0 12 2010 16–9 64.0% #73 1,864 0 4
32 2010 3–4 42.9% #372 1,844 0 12 2011 16–20 44.4% #56 1,819 0 4
33 2011 7–12 36.8% #205 1,762 0 12 2012 14–16 46.7% #100 1,768 0 4
34 2012 31–17 64.6% #21 1,966 0 13 2013 15–13 53.6% #78 1,772 0 5
35 2013 46–23 66.7% #12 2,011 0 15 2014 32–27 54.2% #27 1,853 0 5
36 2014 14–11 56.0% #77 1,904 0 15 2015 38–25 60.3% #23 1,916 0 6
37 2015 2–9 18.2% #470 1,784 0 15 2016 32–22 59.3% #20 1,970 0 8
38 — — — — — — — 2017 15–20 42.9% #80 1,770 0 8
39 2017 6–14 30.0% #252 1,686 0 15 2018 11–16 40.7% #100 1,644 0 8
40 — — — — — — — 2019 11–15 42.3% #95 1,668 0 8
41 — — — — — — — 2020 1–4 20.0% #147 1,615 0 8
42 — — — — — — — 2021 2–4 33.3% #279 1,623 0 8