H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Judith Wiesner vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 1-1
Judith Wiesner and Kimiko Date Krumm are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Kimiko Date Krumm won the 1993 Key Biscayne fourth round 6-3 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.
AUT
Age 60
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
Age 55
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 16, 1993* | Key Biscayne | WTA 1000 | R16 | Hard | Kimiko Date Krumm | 6-3 6-3 | Judith Wiesner | Match data |
| Aug 30, 1990* | US Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Judith Wiesner | 7-6(5) 6-1 | Kimiko Date Krumm | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Judith Wiesner | #48 | #12 | 1,590 | 1,979 | 302 | 177 | 63.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Kimiko Date Krumm | — | — | — | 2,091 | 241 | 188 | 56.2% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 8 |
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 | Judith Wiesner | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1985 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1986 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #141 | 1,514 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1987 | 19–13 | 59.4% | #33 | 1,696 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1988 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #33 | 1,751 | 0 | 1 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 1989 | 22–14 | 61.1% | #35 | 1,736 | 0 | 2 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 1990 | 41–19 | 68.3% | #17 | 1,845 | 0 | 2 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 1991 | 28–14 | 66.7% | #16 | 1,962 | 0 | 2 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 1992 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #25 | 1,916 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 1993 | 30–17 | 63.8% | #21 | 1,906 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 1994 | 28–15 | 65.1% | #25 | 1,893 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 1995 | 28–14 | 66.7% | #25 | 1,914 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 1996 | 35–22 | 61.4% | #15 | 1,925 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1997 | 17–11 | 60.7% | #48 | 1,829 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 2,042 | 0 | 7 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 6–11 | 35.3% | — | 1,841 | 0 | 8 |
| 39 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 19–18 | 51.4% | — | 1,814 | 0 | 8 |
| 40 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 7–24 | 22.6% | — | 1,567 | 0 | 8 |
| 41 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 2–14 | 12.5% | — | 1,454 | 0 | 8 |
| 42 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 12–15 | 44.4% | — | 1,575 | 0 | 8 |
| 43 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 11–14 | 44.0% | — | 1,597 | 0 | 8 |
| 44 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 3–6 | 33.3% | — | 1,574 | 0 | 8 |
| 46 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,564 | 0 | 8 |