H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Betsy Nagelsen vs Susan Leo H2H: 1-1
Betsy Nagelsen and Susan Leo are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Betsy Nagelsen leads 1–0 on carpet, while Susan Leo leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Susan Leo won the 1982 Roland Garros first round 6-4 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
Age 64
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 26, 1982* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Susan Leo | 6-4 6-4 | Betsy Nagelsen | Match data |
| Mar 10, 1982* | Dallas | WTA 250 | R64 | Carpet | Betsy Nagelsen | 6-4 6-3 | Susan Leo | 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 |
| Susan Leo | — | — | — | 1,678 | 59 | 96 | 38.1% | 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.
| Age | Betsy Nagelsen | Susan Leo | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1977 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 1973 | 1–3 | 25.0% | — | 1,517 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1974 | 27–18 | 60.0% | — | 1,730 | 0 | 3 | 1979 | 9–4 | 69.2% | — | 1,589 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | 1975 | 18–17 | 51.4% | — | 1,793 | 0 | 3 | 1980 | 17–12 | 58.6% | — | 1,639 | 0 | 2 |
| 19 | 1976 | 11–19 | 36.7% | — | 1,709 | 0 | 3 | 1981 | 9–21 | 30.0% | — | 1,584 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | 1977 | 8–15 | 34.8% | — | 1,677 | 0 | 3 | 1982 | 6–13 | 31.6% | — | 1,590 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 1978 | 13–24 | 35.1% | — | 1,659 | 0 | 3 | 1983 | 8–19 | 29.6% | — | 1,532 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | 1979 | 18–19 | 48.6% | — | 1,695 | 0 | 5 | 1984 | 7–12 | 36.8% | — | 1,564 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 1980 | 22–27 | 44.9% | — | 1,756 | 0 | 5 | 1985 | 0–6 | 0.0% | — | 1,504 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 1981 | 20–21 | 48.8% | — | 1,803 | 0 | 6 | 1986 | 3–3 | 50.0% | — | 1,520 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 1982 | 12–17 | 41.4% | — | 1,704 | 0 | 6 | 1987 | 0–4 | 0.0% | — | 1,479 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 1983 | 18–22 | 45.0% | — | 1,692 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 1984 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #77 | 1,630 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 1985 | 14–12 | 53.8% | #81 | 1,714 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 1986 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #46 | 1,699 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 1987 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #61 | 1,645 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1988 | 11–19 | 36.7% | #109 | 1,586 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |