H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Mona Guerrant vs Pam Teeguarden H2H: 2-2
Mona Guerrant and Pam Teeguarden are tied 2–2 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Mona Guerrant leads 1–0 on carpet, while Pam Teeguarden leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Mona Guerrant won the 1980 Tucson fourth round 6-4 7-6 6-0.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
USA
Age 77
Right-Handed
H2H
2
–
2
4 main draw meetings
USA
Age 75
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 19, 1980* | Tucson | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Mona Guerrant | 6-4 7-6 6-0 | Pam Teeguarden | Match data |
| Sep 23, 1972* | Albany | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Mona Guerrant | 6-4 3-6 6-2 | Pam Teeguarden | Match data |
| Sep 5, 1972* | US Open | Grand Slam | R32 | Grass | Pam Teeguarden | 6-4 6-4 | Mona Guerrant | Match data |
| Jul 15, 1972* | Gstaad | WTA 250 | QF | Clay | Pam Teeguarden | 3-6 6-4 7-5 | Mona Guerrant | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mona Guerrant | — | — | — | 1,939 | 123 | 117 | 51.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Pam Teeguarden | — | — | — | 1,926 | 245 | 296 | 45.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
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 | Mona Guerrant | Pam Teeguarden | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1968 | 12–17 | 41.4% | — | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1969 | 5–11 | 31.2% | — | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1970 | 19–19 | 50.0% | — | 1,629 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 1969 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,500 | 0 | 0 | 1971 | 17–21 | 44.7% | — | 1,681 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 1970 | 2–3 | 40.0% | — | 1,508 | 0 | 0 | 1972 | 31–25 | 55.4% | — | 1,874 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1971 | 3–8 | 27.3% | — | 1,521 | 0 | 0 | 1973 | 21–22 | 48.8% | — | 1,846 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 1972 | 28–22 | 56.0% | — | 1,735 | 0 | 1 | 1974 | 22–18 | 55.0% | — | 1,905 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 1973 | 17–19 | 47.2% | — | 1,780 | 0 | 2 | 1975 | 21–25 | 45.7% | — | 1,815 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 1974 | 12–14 | 46.2% | — | 1,767 | 0 | 2 | 1976 | 7–14 | 33.3% | — | 1,775 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 1975 | 12–12 | 50.0% | — | 1,897 | 0 | 2 | 1977 | 14–20 | 41.2% | — | 1,783 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 1976 | 15–14 | 51.7% | — | 1,893 | 0 | 2 | 1978 | 11–19 | 36.7% | — | 1,740 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 1977 | 14–9 | 60.9% | — | 1,886 | 0 | 2 | 1979 | 13–19 | 40.6% | — | 1,748 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 1978 | 5–11 | 31.2% | — | 1,804 | 0 | 2 | 1980 | 17–16 | 51.5% | — | 1,803 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1981 | 20–19 | 51.3% | — | 1,788 | 0 | 4 |
| 31 | 1980 | 14–4 | 77.8% | — | 1,809 | 0 | 3 | 1982 | 3–10 | 23.1% | — | 1,684 | 0 | 4 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1983 | 4–6 | 40.0% | — | 1,653 | 0 | 4 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1984 | 8–11 | 42.1% | — | 1,616 | 0 | 4 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1985 | 0–4 | 0.0% | — | 1,588 | 0 | 4 |