H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Emilie Loit vs Stephanie Foretz Gacon H2H: 2-0
Emilie Loit holds a 2–0 lead over Stephanie Foretz Gacon in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Emilie Loit leads 1–0 on carpet and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Emilie Loit won the 2006 Paris fourth 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.
FRA
Age 47
Left-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
Age 45
Right-Handed
166 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 10, 2006* | Paris | WTA 500 | R16 | Carpet | Emilie Loit | 6-0 6-3 | Stephanie Foretz Gacon | Match data |
| Oct 17, 2002* | Bratislava | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Emilie Loit | 6-2 7-6(4) | Stephanie Foretz Gacon | 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 |
| Stephanie Foretz Gacon | — | — | — | 1,647 | 61 | 115 | 34.7% | 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 | Stephanie Foretz Gacon | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1999 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,513 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 5–6 | 45.5% | — | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 11–12 | 47.8% | — | 1,605 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 12–15 | 44.4% | — | 1,588 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 3–10 | 23.1% | — | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 5–14 | 26.3% | — | 1,501 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 | 2006 | 5–14 | 26.3% | — | 1,444 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 | 2007 | 2–6 | 25.0% | — | 1,457 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 | 2008 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,455 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 | 2009 | 2–7 | 22.2% | — | 1,421 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 | 2010 | 0–3 | 0.0% | — | 1,402 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 | 2011 | 2–6 | 25.0% | — | 1,406 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 10–10 | 50.0% | — | 1,514 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 2–5 | 28.6% | — | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |