H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Monica Puig vs Kurumi Nara H2H: 1-1
Monica Puig and Kurumi Nara 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, Monica Puig won the 2016 Tianjin third round 6-3 7-6(5).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
PUR
Age 32
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
JPN
Age 34
Right-Handed
155 cm / 5'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 13, 2016* | Tianjin | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Monica Puig | 6-3 7-6(5) | Kurumi Nara | Match data |
| Oct 11, 2013* | Osaka | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Kurumi Nara | 7-5 7-6(4) | Monica Puig | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monica Puig | #1,073 | #27 | 1,570 | 1,838 | 128 | 136 | 48.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Kurumi Nara | #246 | #32 | 1,412 | 1,700 | 82 | 116 | 41.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Monica Puig | Kurumi Nara | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #211 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #181 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2012 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #124 | 1,464 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #130 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2013 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #56 | 1,571 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #140 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2014 | 16–18 | 47.1% | #59 | 1,616 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #148 | 1,437 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2015 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #92 | 1,579 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #81 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2016 | 31–22 | 58.5% | #32 | 1,713 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #44 | 1,649 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2017 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #58 | 1,709 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #81 | 1,588 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2018 | 18–14 | 56.2% | #53 | 1,775 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #77 | 1,595 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2019 | 16–17 | 48.5% | #79 | 1,692 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #102 | 1,581 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2020 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #105 | 1,629 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 0–13 | 0.0% | #161 | 1,493 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #140 | 1,569 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1073 | 1,625 | 0 | 1 | 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #160 | 1,561 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #185 | 1,514 | 0 | 1 |