H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Betsy Nagelsen vs Eva Pfaff H2H: 1-1
Betsy Nagelsen and Eva Pfaff are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on carpet. Most recently, Betsy Nagelsen won the 1983 Boston fourth round 4-6 6-2 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.
USA
Age 69
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
GER
Age 65
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 18, 1983* | Boston | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Betsy Nagelsen | 4-6 6-2 6-4 | Eva Pfaff | Match data |
| Mar 11, 1982* | Dallas | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Eva Pfaff | 6-1 5-7 6-3 | Betsy Nagelsen | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Betsy Nagelsen | #692 | #25 | 28 | 1,885 | 266 | 324 | 45.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| Eva Pfaff | #420 | #17 | 21 | 1,902 | 155 | 202 | 43.4% | 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 | Betsy Nagelsen | Eva Pfaff | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1972 | 4–2 | 66.7% | — | 1,537 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1973 | 1–3 | 25.0% | — | 1,517 | 0 | 1 | 1977 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,481 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1974 | 27–18 | 60.0% | — | 1,730 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1975 | 18–17 | 51.4% | — | 1,793 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1976 | 11–19 | 36.7% | — | 1,709 | 0 | 3 | 1980 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,609 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1977 | 8–15 | 34.8% | — | 1,677 | 0 | 3 | 1981 | 14–19 | 42.4% | — | 1,643 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1978 | 13–24 | 35.1% | — | 1,659 | 0 | 3 | 1982 | 18–22 | 45.0% | — | 1,777 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1979 | 18–19 | 48.6% | — | 1,695 | 0 | 5 | 1983 | 31–21 | 59.6% | — | 1,856 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1980 | 22–27 | 44.9% | — | 1,756 | 0 | 5 | 1984 | 14–14 | 50.0% | #31 | 1,797 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1981 | 20–21 | 48.8% | — | 1,803 | 0 | 6 | 1985 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #39 | 1,740 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1982 | 12–17 | 41.4% | — | 1,704 | 0 | 6 | 1986 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #58 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1983 | 18–22 | 45.0% | — | 1,692 | 0 | 6 | 1987 | 19–20 | 48.7% | #44 | 1,744 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1984 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #77 | 1,630 | 0 | 6 | 1988 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #74 | 1,649 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1985 | 14–12 | 53.8% | #81 | 1,714 | 0 | 6 | 1989 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #104 | 1,586 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 1986 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #46 | 1,699 | 0 | 6 | 1990 | 3–12 | 20.0% | #152 | 1,521 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 1987 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #61 | 1,645 | 0 | 6 | 1991 | 1–10 | 9.1% | #203 | 1,469 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 1988 | 11–19 | 36.7% | #109 | 1,586 | 0 | 6 | 1992 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #420 | 1,459 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 1989 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #45 | 1,663 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 1990 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #96 | 1,640 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 1991 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #337 | 1,608 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 1992 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #418 | 1,561 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 1993 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #394 | 1,512 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 1994 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #692 | 1,510 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |