H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Beverly Bowes vs Leila Meskhi H2H: 1-1
Beverly Bowes and Leila Meskhi are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Leila Meskhi leads 1–0 on clay, while Beverly Bowes leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Leila Meskhi won the 1992 Amelia Island third round 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 60
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
GEO
Age 58
Right-Handed
164 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 9, 1992* | Amelia Island | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Leila Meskhi | 6-2 6-4 | Beverly Bowes | Match data |
| Oct 22, 1988* | Nashville | WTA 250 | SF | Hard | Beverly Bowes | 6-1 6-1 | Leila Meskhi | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beverly Bowes | #597 | #49 | 16 | 1,678 | 69 | 120 | 36.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Leila Meskhi | #903 | #12 | 72 | 2,001 | 192 | 119 | 61.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
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 | Beverly Bowes | Leila Meskhi | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 1983 | 3–6 | 33.3% | — | 1,526 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1984 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #161 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1985 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #170 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 11–7 | 61.1% | #46 | 1,655 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1986 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #100 | 1,586 | 0 | 0 | 1988 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #46 | 1,688 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1987 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #75 | 1,591 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 21–14 | 60.0% | #30 | 1,794 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1988 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #62 | 1,640 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 38–14 | 73.1% | #19 | 1,928 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 1989 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #101 | 1,619 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 30–14 | 68.2% | #15 | 1,937 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 1990 | 5–13 | 27.8% | #147 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 26–15 | 63.4% | #22 | 1,939 | 0 | 4 |
| 25 | 1991 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #156 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #37 | 1,874 | 0 | 4 |
| 26 | 1992 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #113 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 22–15 | 59.5% | #34 | 1,843 | 0 | 4 |
| 27 | 1993 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #130 | 1,550 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 5–2 | 71.4% | #141 | 1,834 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 1994 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #426 | 1,556 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #838 | 1,748 | 0 | 5 |