H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Chanda Rubin vs Florencia Labat H2H: 0-1
Florencia Labat holds a 1–0 lead over Chanda Rubin in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Florencia Labat leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Florencia Labat won the 1992 Schenectady fourth round 3-6 6-3 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.
USA
Age 50
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
ARG
Age 55
Left-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 28, 1992* | Schenectady | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Florencia Labat | 3-6 6-3 6-2 | Chanda Rubin | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chanda Rubin | #1,122 | #6 | 2,554 | 2,047 | 343 | 231 | 59.8% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 7 |
| Florencia Labat | #106 | #26 | 733 | 1,875 | 190 | 181 | 51.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Chanda Rubin | Florencia Labat | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | 1990 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #526 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 15 | 1991 | 8–6 | 57.1% | #84 | 1,583 | 0 | 0 | 1986 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,482 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 1992 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #84 | 1,617 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1993 | 15–17 | 46.9% | #70 | 1,653 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1994 | 28–17 | 62.2% | #23 | 1,804 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 8–8 | 50.0% | #77 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1995 | 38–19 | 66.7% | #15 | 1,945 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 12–18 | 40.0% | #100 | 1,572 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1996 | 20–9 | 69.0% | #17 | 1,989 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #60 | 1,671 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1997 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #32 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 | 1992 | 18–16 | 52.9% | #52 | 1,736 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1998 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #35 | 1,800 | 0 | 1 | 1993 | 21–16 | 56.8% | #51 | 1,764 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1999 | 33–20 | 62.3% | #22 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 | 1994 | 27–15 | 64.3% | #38 | 1,793 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2000 | 42–22 | 65.6% | #13 | 1,910 | 0 | 3 | 1995 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #55 | 1,783 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2001 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #52 | 1,806 | 0 | 3 | 1996 | 24–17 | 58.5% | #42 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2002 | 29–11 | 72.5% | #13 | 1,958 | 0 | 5 | 1997 | 21–25 | 45.7% | #39 | 1,674 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2003 | 43–20 | 68.3% | #9 | 1,917 | 0 | 7 | 1998 | 13–20 | 39.4% | #64 | 1,655 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2004 | 16–10 | 61.5% | #52 | 1,860 | 0 | 7 | 1999 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #117 | 1,620 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2005 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #545 | 1,823 | 0 | 7 | 2000 | 8–9 | 47.1% | #106 | 1,624 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2006 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #486 | 1,719 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |