H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Heather Ludloff vs Kim Jones H2H: 1-1
Heather Ludloff and Kim Jones are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Kim Jones leads 1–0 on grass, while Heather Ludloff leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Kim Jones won the 1983 Sydney third round 6-2 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.
USA
Age 65
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
Age 68
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 24, 1983* | Sydney | WTA 500 | R32 | Grass | Kim Jones | 6-2 6-3 | Heather Ludloff | Match data |
| Apr 28, 1983* | Atlanta | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Heather Ludloff | 7-6 6-2 | Kim Jones | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heather Ludloff | #512 | #69 | 11 | 1,576 | 48 | 106 | 31.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kim Jones | — | — | — | 1,801 | 60 | 103 | 36.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Heather Ludloff | Kim Jones | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 1978 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,488 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1979 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1980 | 2–5 | 28.6% | — | 1,465 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1981 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,440 | 0 | 0 | 1978 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1982 | 3–4 | 42.9% | — | 1,473 | 0 | 0 | 1979 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,490 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1983 | 7–15 | 31.8% | — | 1,516 | 0 | 0 | 1980 | 1–10 | 9.1% | — | 1,424 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1984 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #129 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 | 1981 | 6–13 | 31.6% | — | 1,459 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1985 | 2–12 | 14.3% | #127 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 | 1982 | 4–14 | 22.2% | — | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1986 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #192 | 1,475 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 20–14 | 58.8% | — | 1,758 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 1987 | 12–16 | 42.9% | #74 | 1,543 | 0 | 0 | 1984 | 13–24 | 35.1% | — | 1,667 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 1988 | 6–14 | 30.0% | #123 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 13–18 | 41.9% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 1989 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #164 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 1986 | 2–4 | 33.3% | — | 1,677 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 1990 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #219 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 1987 | 0–4 | 0.0% | — | 1,629 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 1991 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #141 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1992 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #282 | 1,472 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |