H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Mima Jausovec vs Heather Ludloff H2H: 1-0
Mima Jausovec holds a 1–0 lead over Heather Ludloff in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Mima Jausovec leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Mima Jausovec won the 1984 US Open first round 6-2 6-1.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
SLO
Age 69
Right-Handed
160 cm / 5'3"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 65
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 30, 1984* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Mima Jausovec | 6-2 6-1 | Heather Ludloff | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mima Jausovec | #400 | #23 | 2 | 2,088 | 339 | 246 | 57.9% | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 7 |
| Heather Ludloff | #512 | #69 | 11 | 1,576 | 48 | 106 | 31.2% | 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 | Mima Jausovec | Heather Ludloff | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1972 | 2–0 | 100.0% | — | 1,533 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1973 | 2–1 | 66.7% | — | 1,560 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1974 | 18–13 | 58.1% | — | 1,790 | 0 | 1 | 1978 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1975 | 16–19 | 45.7% | — | 1,804 | 0 | 1 | 1979 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1976 | 33–16 | 67.3% | — | 1,996 | 0 | 4 | 1980 | 2–5 | 28.6% | — | 1,465 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1977 | 32–21 | 60.4% | — | 2,008 | 1 | 5 | 1981 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,440 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1978 | 29–19 | 60.4% | — | 1,922 | 1 | 6 | 1982 | 3–4 | 42.9% | — | 1,473 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1979 | 32–28 | 53.3% | — | 1,866 | 1 | 6 | 1983 | 7–15 | 31.8% | — | 1,516 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1980 | 34–22 | 60.7% | — | 1,941 | 1 | 6 | 1984 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #129 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1981 | 57–28 | 67.1% | — | 2,010 | 1 | 6 | 1985 | 2–12 | 14.3% | #127 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1982 | 36–24 | 60.0% | — | 1,861 | 1 | 7 | 1986 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #192 | 1,475 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1983 | 23–16 | 59.0% | — | 1,873 | 1 | 7 | 1987 | 12–16 | 42.9% | #74 | 1,543 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1984 | 12–17 | 41.4% | #87 | 1,747 | 1 | 7 | 1988 | 6–14 | 30.0% | #123 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1985 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,695 | 1 | 7 | 1989 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #164 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 1986 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #184 | 1,673 | 1 | 7 | 1990 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #219 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 1987 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #233 | 1,656 | 1 | 7 | 1991 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #141 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 1988 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #362 | 1,641 | 1 | 7 | 1992 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #282 | 1,472 | 0 | 0 |