H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Candy Reynolds vs Kate Latham H2H: 2-1
Candy Reynolds holds a 2–1 lead over Kate Latham in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Candy Reynolds leads 1–0 on carpet and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Candy Reynolds won the 1982 Roland Garros first round 6-3 3-6 6-3.
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 71
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
Age 73
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 26, 1982* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Candy Reynolds | 6-3 3-6 6-3 | Kate Latham | Match data |
| Sep 18, 1981* | Tokyo Sillook | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Candy Reynolds | 7-6 4-6 6-2 | Kate Latham | Match data |
| Jul 4, 1975* | Grossinger | WTA 250 | R16 | — | Kate Latham | 6-2 6-2 | Candy Reynolds | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Candy Reynolds | #485 | #76 | 5 | 1,859 | 84 | 140 | 37.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kate Latham | — | — | — | 1,866 | 198 | 202 | 49.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
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 | Candy Reynolds | Kate Latham | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1969 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1970 | 1–3 | 25.0% | — | 1,476 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1973 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1974 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,487 | 0 | 0 | 1972 | 3–3 | 50.0% | — | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1975 | 2–6 | 25.0% | — | 1,466 | 0 | 0 | 1973 | 6–7 | 46.2% | — | 1,587 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1976 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,458 | 0 | 0 | 1974 | 40–16 | 71.4% | — | 1,844 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 1977 | 1–8 | 11.1% | — | 1,419 | 0 | 0 | 1975 | 15–20 | 42.9% | — | 1,690 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 1978 | 1–4 | 20.0% | — | 1,412 | 0 | 0 | 1976 | 4–2 | 66.7% | — | 1,680 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1977 | 15–12 | 55.6% | — | 1,755 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 1980 | 12–13 | 48.0% | — | 1,611 | 0 | 0 | 1978 | 13–17 | 43.3% | — | 1,661 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 1981 | 19–17 | 52.8% | — | 1,785 | 0 | 0 | 1979 | 21–23 | 47.7% | — | 1,848 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 1982 | 17–22 | 43.6% | — | 1,799 | 0 | 0 | 1980 | 23–22 | 51.1% | — | 1,750 | 0 | 4 |
| 28 | 1983 | 8–13 | 38.1% | — | 1,706 | 0 | 0 | 1981 | 21–20 | 51.2% | — | 1,774 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 1984 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #109 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 | 1982 | 24–28 | 46.2% | — | 1,688 | 0 | 5 |
| 30 | 1985 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #107 | 1,608 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 9–16 | 36.0% | — | 1,625 | 0 | 6 |
| 31 | 1986 | 6–16 | 27.3% | #127 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 | 1984 | 0–11 | 0.0% | — | 1,494 | 0 | 6 |
| 32 | 1987 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #177 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 3–1 | 75.0% | — | 1,528 | 0 | 6 |
| 33 | 1988 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #251 | 1,440 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 1989 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #485 | 1,421 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |