H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Lindsey Beaven vs Penny Moor H2H: 4-0
Lindsey Beaven holds a 4–0 lead over Penny Moor in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Lindsey Beaven leads 2–0 on clay and 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Lindsey Beaven won the 1976 Torquay third round 6-4 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.
GBR
Age 76
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H
4
–
0
4 main draw meetings
Age 75
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 28, 1976* | Torquay | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Lindsey Beaven | 6-4 6-4 | Penny Moor | Match data |
| Apr 16, 1975* | Hampstead | WTA 250 | R64 | Clay | Lindsey Beaven | 3-6 7-6 6-3 | Penny Moor | Match data |
| Jul 15, 1971* | Frinton-On-Sea | WTA 250 | R32 | Grass | Lindsey Beaven | 7-5 6-2 | Penny Moor | Match data |
| Apr 24, 1969* | Hampstead | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Lindsey Beaven | 6-1 6-2 | Penny Moor | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lindsey Beaven | — | — | — | 1,738 | 121 | 133 | 47.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 |
| Penny Moor | — | — | — | 1,552 | 53 | 111 | 32.3% | 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 | Lindsey Beaven | Penny Moor | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1968 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1969 | 2–5 | 28.6% | — | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1968 | 0–3 | 0.0% | — | 1,473 | 0 | 0 | 1970 | 6–10 | 37.5% | — | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1969 | 6–8 | 42.9% | — | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | 1971 | 9–15 | 37.5% | — | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1970 | 12–16 | 42.9% | — | 1,538 | 0 | 0 | 1972 | 5–15 | 25.0% | — | 1,477 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1971 | 17–13 | 56.7% | — | 1,589 | 0 | 1 | 1973 | 9–20 | 31.0% | — | 1,486 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1972 | 5–11 | 31.2% | — | 1,566 | 0 | 2 | 1974 | 7–21 | 25.0% | — | 1,426 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1973 | 29–20 | 59.2% | — | 1,621 | 0 | 4 | 1975 | 11–10 | 52.4% | — | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1974 | 15–21 | 41.7% | — | 1,548 | 0 | 5 | 1976 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,472 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1975 | 26–23 | 53.1% | — | 1,595 | 0 | 6 | 1977 | 2–3 | 40.0% | — | 1,469 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1976 | 6–10 | 37.5% | — | 1,570 | 0 | 7 | 1978 | 2–3 | 40.0% | — | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1977 | 5–8 | 38.5% | — | 1,573 | 0 | 8 | 1979 | 0–3 | 0.0% | — | 1,434 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1980 | 0–3 | 0.0% | — | 1,395 | 0 | 0 |