H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Catherine Tanvier vs Mercedes Paz H2H: 1-0
Catherine Tanvier holds a 1–0 lead over Mercedes Paz in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Catherine Tanvier leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Catherine Tanvier won the 1986 Charleston fourth round 6-2 4-6 6-1.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
FRA
Age 61
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
ARG
Age 60
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 25, 1986* | Charleston | WTA 500 | R16 | Clay | Catherine Tanvier | 6-2 4-6 6-1 | Mercedes Paz | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Catherine Tanvier | #752 | #20 | 22 | 1,877 | 161 | 179 | 47.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mercedes Paz | #521 | #28 | 185 | 1,822 | 144 | 182 | 44.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
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 | Catherine Tanvier | Mercedes Paz | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1980 | 4–2 | 66.7% | — | 1,545 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1981 | 6–14 | 30.0% | — | 1,540 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1982 | 23–19 | 54.8% | — | 1,791 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1983 | 17–16 | 51.5% | — | 1,824 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1984 | 21–18 | 53.8% | #30 | 1,777 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #115 | 1,526 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 1985 | 18–16 | 52.9% | #39 | 1,775 | 0 | 0 | 1986 | 22–23 | 48.9% | #60 | 1,577 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 1986 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #37 | 1,825 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #88 | 1,637 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1987 | 10–19 | 34.5% | #96 | 1,618 | 0 | 0 | 1988 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #44 | 1,779 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 1988 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #77 | 1,602 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #91 | 1,647 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 1989 | 12–12 | 50.0% | #65 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 25–20 | 55.6% | #32 | 1,776 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 1990 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #99 | 1,658 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #71 | 1,684 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 1991 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #104 | 1,603 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #107 | 1,614 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 1992 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #105 | 1,614 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 2–11 | 15.4% | #213 | 1,495 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 1993 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #543 | 1,578 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #140 | 1,476 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #164 | 1,452 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #124 | 1,442 | 0 | 3 |