H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Iva Budarova vs Beverly Bowes H2H: 1-0
Iva Budarova holds a 1–0 lead over Beverly Bowes in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Iva Budarova leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Iva Budarova won the 1984 Indianapolis second round 6-3 6-4.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
TCH
Age 65
Left-Handed
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 60
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 6, 1984* | Indianapolis | WTA 250 | R64 | Clay | Iva Budarova | 6-3 6-4 | Beverly Bowes | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iva Budarova | #661 | #25 | 9 | 1,859 | 148 | 206 | 41.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Beverly Bowes | #597 | #49 | 16 | 1,678 | 69 | 120 | 36.5% | 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 | Iva Budarova | Beverly Bowes | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1977 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,510 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1978 | 4–6 | 40.0% | — | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 3–6 | 33.3% | — | 1,526 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1979 | 15–13 | 53.6% | — | 1,655 | 0 | 3 | 1984 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #161 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1980 | 3–8 | 27.3% | — | 1,606 | 0 | 3 | 1985 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #170 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1981 | 2–14 | 12.5% | — | 1,544 | 0 | 3 | 1986 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #100 | 1,586 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1982 | 14–19 | 42.4% | — | 1,656 | 0 | 3 | 1987 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #75 | 1,591 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1983 | 33–23 | 58.9% | — | 1,734 | 0 | 3 | 1988 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #62 | 1,640 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1984 | 18–22 | 45.0% | #56 | 1,705 | 0 | 3 | 1989 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #101 | 1,619 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1985 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #68 | 1,727 | 0 | 3 | 1990 | 5–13 | 27.8% | #147 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1986 | 11–24 | 31.4% | #112 | 1,587 | 0 | 3 | 1991 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #156 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1987 | 6–14 | 30.0% | #116 | 1,563 | 0 | 3 | 1992 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #113 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1988 | 12–18 | 40.0% | #105 | 1,586 | 0 | 3 | 1993 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #130 | 1,550 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1989 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #141 | 1,560 | 0 | 3 | 1994 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #426 | 1,556 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 1990 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #186 | 1,534 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |