H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Dianne Fromholtz vs Mary Lou Piatek H2H: 5-0
Dianne Fromholtz holds a 5–0 lead over Mary Lou Piatek in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, Dianne Fromholtz leads 2–0 on carpet and 2–0 on grass. Most recently, Dianne Fromholtz won the 1986 Worcester second round 6-0 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.
AUS
Age 69
Left-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H
5
–
0
5 main draw meetings
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 15, 1986* | Worcester | WTA 250 | R64 | Carpet | Dianne Fromholtz | 6-0 6-3 | Mary Lou Piatek | Match data |
| Nov 14, 1984* | Brisbane | WTA 500 | R64 | Grass | Dianne Fromholtz | 6-4 6-1 | Mary Lou Piatek | Match data |
| Sep 2, 1982* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Dianne Fromholtz | 6-1 7-6 | Mary Lou Piatek | Match data |
| Jun 18, 1980* | Eastbourne | WTA 250 | R64 | Grass | Dianne Fromholtz | 6-4 6-0 | Mary Lou Piatek | Match data |
| Jan 25, 1980* | Chicago | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Dianne Fromholtz | 6-2 6-1 | Mary Lou Piatek | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dianne Fromholtz | #306 | #19 | 34 | 2,167 | 466 | 282 | 62.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 21 | 22 |
| Mary Lou Piatek | — | — | — | 1,936 | 153 | 206 | 42.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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.
| Dianne Fromholtz | Mary Lou Piatek | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 1971 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,487 | 0 | 0 | 1978 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 1972 | 7–7 | 50.0% | — | 1,546 | 0 | 0 | 1979 | 3–5 | 37.5% | — | 1,546 | 0 | 0 |
| 1973 | 57–13 | 81.4% | — | 1,911 | 0 | 12 | 1980 | 16–12 | 57.1% | — | 1,737 | 0 | 0 |
| 1974 | 52–20 | 72.2% | — | 1,963 | 0 | 16 | 1981 | 30–22 | 57.7% | — | 1,873 | 0 | 1 |
| 1975 | 34–29 | 54.0% | — | 1,906 | 0 | 16 | 1982 | 18–21 | 46.2% | — | 1,792 | 0 | 1 |
| 1976 | 39–13 | 75.0% | — | 2,063 | 0 | 19 | 1983 | 12–20 | 37.5% | — | 1,721 | 0 | 1 |
| 1977 | 32–18 | 64.0% | — | 2,074 | 0 | 19 | 1984 | 18–20 | 47.4% | — | 1,703 | 0 | 2 |
| 1978 | 28–13 | 68.3% | — | 2,049 | 0 | 21 | 1985 | 14–18 | 43.8% | — | 1,678 | 0 | 2 |
| 1979 | 57–27 | 67.9% | — | 2,005 | 0 | 22 | 1986 | 8–15 | 34.8% | — | 1,619 | 0 | 2 |
| 1980 | 46–21 | 68.7% | — | 2,009 | 0 | 22 | 1987 | 6–12 | 33.3% | — | 1,594 | 0 | 2 |
| 1981 | 13–19 | 40.6% | — | 1,740 | 0 | 22 | 1988 | 6–16 | 27.3% | — | 1,542 | 0 | 2 |
| 1982 | 16–15 | 51.6% | — | 1,786 | 0 | 22 | 1989 | 7–15 | 31.8% | — | 1,593 | 0 | 2 |
| 1983 | 7–13 | 35.0% | — | 1,691 | 0 | 22 | 1990 | 8–11 | 42.1% | — | 1,612 | 0 | 2 |
| 1984 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #138 | 1,717 | 0 | 22 | 1991 | 5–8 | 38.5% | — | 1,630 | 0 | 2 |
| 1985 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #97 | 1,794 | 0 | 22 | 1992 | 1–8 | 11.1% | — | 1,560 | 0 | 2 |
| 1986 | 19–14 | 57.6% | #25 | 1,818 | 0 | 22 | 1993 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,555 | 0 | 2 |
| 1987 | 19–13 | 59.4% | #21 | 1,850 | 0 | 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1988 | 14–14 | 50.0% | #56 | 1,749 | 0 | 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1989 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #131 | 1,674 | 0 | 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1990 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #306 | 1,631 | 0 | 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |