H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Gigi Fernandez vs Emiko Okagawa H2H: 2-0
Gigi Fernandez holds a 2–0 lead over Emiko Okagawa in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Gigi Fernandez leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Gigi Fernandez won the 1986 Singapore third round 6-3 2-6 7-6.
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 62
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
Age 61
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 23, 1986* | Singapore | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Gigi Fernandez | 6-3 2-6 7-6 | Emiko Okagawa | Match data |
| Oct 17, 1986* | Tokyo Japan Open | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Gigi Fernandez | 6-4 6-2 | Emiko Okagawa | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gigi Fernandez | #181 | #17 | 247 | 1,912 | 227 | 217 | 51.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Emiko Okagawa | — | — | — | 1,523 | 18 | 39 | 31.6% | 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 | Gigi Fernandez | Emiko Okagawa | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1980 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1981 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,476 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1982 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,481 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1982 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,454 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1983 | 4–8 | 33.3% | — | 1,524 | 0 | 0 | 1984 | 5–6 | 45.5% | — | 1,473 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1984 | 18–16 | 52.9% | #27 | 1,723 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 1–8 | 11.1% | — | 1,436 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1985 | 9–18 | 33.3% | #64 | 1,655 | 0 | 0 | 1986 | 3–5 | 37.5% | — | 1,457 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1986 | 17–14 | 54.8% | #57 | 1,729 | 0 | 1 | 1987 | 4–6 | 40.0% | — | 1,486 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1987 | 16–17 | 48.5% | #39 | 1,681 | 0 | 1 | 1988 | 3–4 | 42.9% | — | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1988 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #53 | 1,684 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 1989 | 23–15 | 60.5% | #23 | 1,810 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1990 | 18–14 | 56.2% | #36 | 1,765 | 0 | 1 | 1991 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,458 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1991 | 30–18 | 62.5% | #22 | 1,809 | 0 | 2 | 1992 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,447 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1992 | 22–16 | 57.9% | #32 | 1,806 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 1993 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #50 | 1,730 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 1994 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #32 | 1,789 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1995 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #65 | 1,738 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 1996 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #112 | 1,687 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 1997 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #180 | 1,707 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |