H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Billie Jean King vs Winnie Shaw H2H: 4-0
Billie Jean King holds a 4–0 lead over Winnie Shaw in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Billie Jean King leads 2–0 on grass and 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Billie Jean King won the 1972 Wimbledon fourth round 6-4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 5, 1972* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R16 | Grass | Billie Jean King | 6-4 6-2 | Winnie Shaw | Match data |
| May 28, 1972* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R32 | Clay | Billie Jean King | 6-3 6-0 | Winnie Shaw | Match data |
| Mar 20, 1970* | Sydney | WTA 500 | R16 | Grass | Billie Jean King | 6-4 7-5 | Winnie Shaw | Match data |
| Mar 31, 1968* | New York | WTA 250 | QF | Carpet | Billie Jean King | 6-4 6-4 | Winnie Shaw | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Billie Jean King | #22 | #13 | — | 2,402 | 684 | 160 | 81.0% | 9 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 59 | 72 |
| Winnie Shaw | — | — | — | 1,991 | 296 | 144 | 67.3% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 12 | 14 |
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 | Billie Jean King | Winnie Shaw | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1968 | 49–28 | 63.6% | — | 1,787 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1969 | 69–27 | 71.9% | — | 1,907 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1970 | 55–26 | 67.9% | — | 1,941 | 0 | 6 |
| 24 | 1968 | 40–5 | 88.9% | — | 1,823 | 2 | 6 | 1971 | 46–26 | 63.9% | — | 1,855 | 0 | 7 |
| 25 | 1969 | 58–14 | 80.6% | — | 2,043 | 2 | 11 | 1972 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,858 | 0 | 11 |
| 26 | 1970 | 47–11 | 81.0% | — | 2,172 | 2 | 16 | 1973 | 2–2 | 50.0% | — | 1,828 | 0 | 12 |
| 27 | 1971 | 114–15 | 88.4% | — | 2,293 | 3 | 33 | 1974 | 5–3 | 62.5% | — | 1,821 | 0 | 12 |
| 28 | 1972 | 89–15 | 85.6% | — | 2,341 | 6 | 43 | 1975 | 10–6 | 62.5% | — | 1,795 | 0 | 12 |
| 29 | 1973 | 56–12 | 82.4% | — | 2,294 | 7 | 50 | 1976 | 4–5 | 44.4% | — | 1,735 | 0 | 12 |
| 30 | 1974 | 54–8 | 87.1% | — | 2,300 | 8 | 56 | 1977 | 8–2 | 80.0% | — | 1,796 | 0 | 14 |
| 31 | 1975 | 23–3 | 88.5% | — | 2,370 | 9 | 58 | 1978 | 12–5 | 70.6% | — | 1,784 | 0 | 14 |
| 32 | 1976 | 2–2 | 50.0% | — | 2,316 | 9 | 58 | 1979 | 4–2 | 66.7% | — | 1,761 | 0 | 14 |
| 33 | 1977 | 46–6 | 88.5% | — | 2,386 | 9 | 64 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 1978 | 28–12 | 70.0% | — | 2,301 | 9 | 64 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 1979 | 36–13 | 73.5% | — | 2,164 | 9 | 66 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 1980 | 39–15 | 72.2% | — | 2,122 | 9 | 69 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 1981 | 4–5 | 44.4% | — | 2,019 | 9 | 69 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 1982 | 26–19 | 57.8% | — | 1,932 | 9 | 70 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 39 | 1983 | 22–5 | 81.5% | — | 2,052 | 9 | 72 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |