H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Kate Latham vs Betty Ann Grubb H2H: 2-0
Kate Latham holds a 2–0 lead over Betty Ann Grubb in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Kate Latham leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Kate Latham won the 1977 Indianapolis third round 7-6 2-6 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.
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 12, 1977* | Indianapolis | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Kate Latham | 7-6 2-6 6-3 | Betty Ann Grubb | Match data |
| Apr 6, 1974* | Costa Mesa | WTA 250 | SF | Hard | Kate Latham | 6-2 6-2 | Betty Ann Grubb | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kate Latham | — | — | — | 1,866 | 198 | 202 | 49.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| Betty Ann Grubb | — | — | — | 1,822 | 124 | 112 | 52.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
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.
| Kate Latham | Betty Ann Grubb | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 1969 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,489 | 0 | 0 | 1968 | 21–8 | 72.4% | — | 1,633 | 0 | 3 |
| 1970 | 1–3 | 25.0% | — | 1,476 | 0 | 0 | 1969 | 29–14 | 67.4% | — | 1,778 | 0 | 5 |
| 1972 | 3–3 | 50.0% | — | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | 1970 | 18–15 | 54.5% | — | 1,685 | 0 | 5 |
| 1973 | 6–7 | 46.2% | — | 1,587 | 0 | 0 | 1971 | 5–11 | 31.2% | — | 1,687 | 0 | 5 |
| 1974 | 40–16 | 71.4% | — | 1,844 | 0 | 3 | 1972 | 2–2 | 50.0% | — | 1,679 | 0 | 6 |
| 1975 | 15–20 | 42.9% | — | 1,690 | 0 | 3 | 1973 | 4–4 | 50.0% | — | 1,703 | 0 | 7 |
| 1976 | 4–2 | 66.7% | — | 1,680 | 0 | 3 | 1974 | 7–10 | 41.2% | — | 1,676 | 0 | 7 |
| 1977 | 15–12 | 55.6% | — | 1,755 | 0 | 3 | 1975 | 5–4 | 55.6% | — | 1,729 | 0 | 7 |
| 1978 | 13–17 | 43.3% | — | 1,661 | 0 | 3 | 1976 | 2–4 | 33.3% | — | 1,684 | 0 | 7 |
| 1979 | 21–23 | 47.7% | — | 1,848 | 0 | 3 | 1977 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,654 | 0 | 7 |
| 1980 | 23–22 | 51.1% | — | 1,750 | 0 | 4 | 1978 | 3–1 | 75.0% | — | 1,661 | 0 | 7 |
| 1981 | 21–20 | 51.2% | — | 1,774 | 0 | 5 | 1979 | 25–26 | 49.0% | — | 1,814 | 0 | 7 |
| 1982 | 24–28 | 46.2% | — | 1,688 | 0 | 5 | 1980 | 2–9 | 18.2% | — | 1,720 | 0 | 7 |
| 1983 | 9–16 | 36.0% | — | 1,625 | 0 | 6 | 1981 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,707 | 0 | 7 |
| 1984 | 0–11 | 0.0% | — | 1,494 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1985 | 3–1 | 75.0% | — | 1,528 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |