H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Emilie Loit vs Mashona Washington H2H: 1-1
Emilie Loit and Mashona Washington are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Emilie Loit leads 1–0 on clay, while Mashona Washington leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Mashona Washington won the 2006 Hobart third round 6-3 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.
FRA
Age 47
Left-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 50
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 12, 2006* | Hobart | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Mashona Washington | 6-3 6-3 | Emilie Loit | Match data |
| Mar 5, 2004* | Acapulco | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Emilie Loit | 6-4 6-4 | Mashona Washington | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emilie Loit | #161 | #27 | 1,016 | 1,780 | 162 | 180 | 47.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Mashona Washington | #990 | #50 | 676 | 1,647 | 42 | 76 | 35.6% | 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 | Emilie Loit | Mashona Washington | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #407 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #165 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #130 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #142 | 1,481 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 | 2001 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #134 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 | 2002 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #109 | 1,470 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 | 2003 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #199 | 1,441 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 | 2004 | 13–12 | 52.0% | #53 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 | 2005 | 13–22 | 37.1% | #73 | 1,588 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #230 | 1,580 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #309 | 1,564 | 0 | 0 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #364 | 1,540 | 0 | 0 |