H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Chanda Rubin vs Iva Majoli H2H: 3-2
Chanda Rubin holds a 3–2 lead over Iva Majoli in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, Iva Majoli leads 2–1 on hard courts, while Chanda Rubin leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Chanda Rubin won the 2003 Wimbledon first round 6-3 6-0.
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
3
–
2
5 main draw meetings
CRO
Age 48
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 25, 2003* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Chanda Rubin | 6-3 6-0 | Iva Majoli | Match data |
| Nov 15, 1996* | Philadelphia | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Chanda Rubin | 5-7 6-2 6-1 | Iva Majoli | Match data |
| Oct 14, 1995* | Filderstadt | WTA 250 | SF | Hard | Iva Majoli | 6-4 1-6 7-6 | Chanda Rubin | Match data |
| Oct 7, 1995* | Zurich | WTA 1000 | SF | Hard | Iva Majoli | 7-6 6-0 | Chanda Rubin | Match data |
| Mar 2, 1994* | Delray Beach | WTA 250 | R64 | Hard | Chanda Rubin | 6-0 6-0 | Iva Majoli | 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 |
| Iva Majoli | #777 | #4 | 3,406 | 2,157 | 259 | 190 | 57.7% | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 8 |
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 | Iva Majoli | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1992 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #50 | 1,624 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | 1991 | 8–6 | 57.1% | #84 | 1,583 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #46 | 1,736 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 1992 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #84 | 1,617 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 38–19 | 66.7% | #13 | 1,922 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1993 | 15–17 | 46.9% | #70 | 1,653 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 29–12 | 70.7% | #9 | 2,046 | 0 | 2 |
| 18 | 1994 | 28–17 | 62.2% | #23 | 1,804 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 39–16 | 70.9% | #8 | 2,040 | 0 | 4 |
| 19 | 1995 | 38–19 | 66.7% | #15 | 1,945 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 43–21 | 67.2% | #6 | 1,947 | 1 | 7 |
| 20 | 1996 | 20–9 | 69.0% | #17 | 1,989 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #25 | 1,828 | 1 | 7 |
| 21 | 1997 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #32 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 | 1999 | 5–11 | 31.2% | #164 | 1,694 | 1 | 7 |
| 22 | 1998 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #35 | 1,800 | 0 | 1 | 2000 | 11–10 | 52.4% | #62 | 1,703 | 1 | 7 |
| 23 | 1999 | 33–20 | 62.3% | #22 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 | 2001 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #44 | 1,697 | 1 | 7 |
| 24 | 2000 | 42–22 | 65.6% | #13 | 1,910 | 0 | 3 | 2002 | 23–22 | 51.1% | #32 | 1,668 | 1 | 8 |
| 25 | 2001 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #52 | 1,806 | 0 | 3 | 2003 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #131 | 1,589 | 1 | 8 |
| 26 | 2002 | 29–11 | 72.5% | #13 | 1,958 | 0 | 5 | 2004 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #321 | 1,564 | 1 | 8 |
| 27 | 2003 | 43–20 | 68.3% | #9 | 1,917 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2004 | 16–10 | 61.5% | #52 | 1,860 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2005 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #545 | 1,823 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2006 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #486 | 1,719 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |