H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Iva Majoli vs Noelle Van Lottum H2H: 1-0
Iva Majoli holds a 1–0 lead over Noelle Van Lottum in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Iva Majoli leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Iva Majoli won the 1994 US Open first round 6-1 2-0 RET.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
CRO
Age 48
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
Age 54
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 31, 1994* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Iva Majoli | 6-1 2-0 (ret.) | Noelle Van Lottum | 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 Majoli | #777 | #4 | 3,406 | 2,157 | 259 | 190 | 57.7% | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 8 |
| Noelle Van Lottum | — | — | — | 1,659 | 56 | 96 | 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 | Iva Majoli | Noelle Van Lottum | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | 1992 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #50 | 1,624 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 15 | 1993 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #46 | 1,736 | 0 | 0 | 1988 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 1994 | 38–19 | 66.7% | #13 | 1,922 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 3–2 | 60.0% | — | 1,533 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1995 | 29–12 | 70.7% | #9 | 2,046 | 0 | 2 | 1990 | 3–2 | 60.0% | — | 1,580 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1996 | 39–16 | 70.9% | #8 | 2,040 | 0 | 4 | 1991 | 8–15 | 34.8% | — | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1997 | 43–21 | 67.2% | #6 | 1,947 | 1 | 7 | 1992 | 17–20 | 45.9% | — | 1,611 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 1998 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #25 | 1,828 | 1 | 7 | 1993 | 13–21 | 38.2% | — | 1,586 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 1999 | 5–11 | 31.2% | #164 | 1,694 | 1 | 7 | 1994 | 7–12 | 36.8% | — | 1,577 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2000 | 11–10 | 52.4% | #62 | 1,703 | 1 | 7 | 1995 | 1–9 | 10.0% | — | 1,466 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2001 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #44 | 1,697 | 1 | 7 | 1996 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,442 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2002 | 23–22 | 51.1% | #32 | 1,668 | 1 | 8 | 1997 | 2–9 | 18.2% | — | 1,427 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2003 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #131 | 1,589 | 1 | 8 | 1998 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,429 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2004 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #321 | 1,564 | 1 | 8 | 1999 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,416 | 0 | 1 |