H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Ann Kiyomura Hayashi vs Mary Lou Piatek H2H: 0-2
Mary Lou Piatek holds a 2–0 lead over Ann Kiyomura Hayashi in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Mary Lou Piatek leads 1–0 on carpet and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Mary Lou Piatek won the 1984 Houston third round 6-3 6-2.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 2, 1984* | Houston | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Mary Lou Piatek | 6-3 6-2 | Ann Kiyomura Hayashi | Match data |
| Aug 28, 1980* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Mary Lou Piatek | 6-1 7-5 | Ann Kiyomura Hayashi | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ann Kiyomura Hayashi | — | — | — | 1,924 | 182 | 200 | 47.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Mary Lou Piatek | — | — | — | 1,936 | 153 | 206 | 42.6% | 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.
| Ann Kiyomura Hayashi | Mary Lou Piatek | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 1968 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,488 | 0 | 0 | 1978 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 1969 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,473 | 0 | 0 | 1979 | 3–5 | 37.5% | — | 1,546 | 0 | 0 |
| 1970 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,459 | 0 | 0 | 1980 | 16–12 | 57.1% | — | 1,737 | 0 | 0 |
| 1971 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 1981 | 30–22 | 57.7% | — | 1,873 | 0 | 1 |
| 1972 | 5–4 | 55.6% | — | 1,515 | 0 | 0 | 1982 | 18–21 | 46.2% | — | 1,792 | 0 | 1 |
| 1973 | 28–30 | 48.3% | — | 1,649 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 12–20 | 37.5% | — | 1,721 | 0 | 1 |
| 1974 | 24–13 | 64.9% | — | 1,789 | 0 | 0 | 1984 | 18–20 | 47.4% | — | 1,703 | 0 | 2 |
| 1975 | 7–12 | 36.8% | — | 1,770 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 14–18 | 43.8% | — | 1,678 | 0 | 2 |
| 1976 | 9–16 | 36.0% | — | 1,714 | 0 | 0 | 1986 | 8–15 | 34.8% | — | 1,619 | 0 | 2 |
| 1977 | 4–8 | 33.3% | — | 1,731 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 6–12 | 33.3% | — | 1,594 | 0 | 2 |
| 1978 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,803 | 0 | 1 | 1988 | 6–16 | 27.3% | — | 1,542 | 0 | 2 |
| 1979 | 26–22 | 54.2% | — | 1,873 | 0 | 1 | 1989 | 7–15 | 31.8% | — | 1,593 | 0 | 2 |
| 1980 | 13–20 | 39.4% | — | 1,719 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 8–11 | 42.1% | — | 1,612 | 0 | 2 |
| 1981 | 23–19 | 54.8% | — | 1,853 | 0 | 2 | 1991 | 5–8 | 38.5% | — | 1,630 | 0 | 2 |
| 1982 | 18–20 | 47.4% | — | 1,827 | 0 | 2 | 1992 | 1–8 | 11.1% | — | 1,560 | 0 | 2 |
| 1983 | 13–20 | 39.4% | — | 1,713 | 0 | 2 | 1993 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,555 | 0 | 2 |
| 1984 | 2–5 | 28.6% | — | 1,684 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |