H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Pam Teeguarden vs Heidi Eisterlehner H2H: 2-0
Pam Teeguarden holds a 2–0 lead over Heidi Eisterlehner in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Pam Teeguarden leads 1–0 on carpet and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Pam Teeguarden won the 1981 Houston fourth round 6-1 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.
USA
Age 75
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
GER
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 20, 1981* | Houston | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Pam Teeguarden | 6-1 6-3 | Heidi Eisterlehner | Match data |
| Jun 4, 1978* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R32 | Clay | Pam Teeguarden | 6-1 6-4 | Heidi Eisterlehner | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pam Teeguarden | — | — | — | 1,926 | 245 | 296 | 45.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| Heidi Eisterlehner | — | — | — | 1,774 | 112 | 127 | 46.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
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 | Pam Teeguarden | Heidi Eisterlehner | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1969 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,486 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1971 | 17–21 | 44.7% | — | 1,681 | 0 | 1 | 1970 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,480 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1972 | 31–25 | 55.4% | — | 1,874 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 1973 | 21–22 | 48.8% | — | 1,846 | 0 | 1 | 1972 | 0–5 | 0.0% | — | 1,416 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1974 | 22–18 | 55.0% | — | 1,905 | 0 | 3 | 1973 | 5–6 | 45.5% | — | 1,453 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1975 | 21–25 | 45.7% | — | 1,815 | 0 | 3 | 1974 | 2–2 | 50.0% | — | 1,472 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1976 | 7–14 | 33.3% | — | 1,775 | 0 | 3 | 1975 | 13–9 | 59.1% | — | 1,661 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 1977 | 14–20 | 41.2% | — | 1,783 | 0 | 3 | 1976 | 15–19 | 44.1% | — | 1,650 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 1978 | 11–19 | 36.7% | — | 1,740 | 0 | 3 | 1977 | 11–15 | 42.3% | — | 1,618 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 1979 | 13–19 | 40.6% | — | 1,748 | 0 | 3 | 1978 | 14–15 | 48.3% | — | 1,613 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 1980 | 17–16 | 51.5% | — | 1,803 | 0 | 3 | 1979 | 4–6 | 40.0% | — | 1,599 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 1981 | 20–19 | 51.3% | — | 1,788 | 0 | 4 | 1980 | 27–17 | 61.4% | — | 1,675 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 1982 | 3–10 | 23.1% | — | 1,684 | 0 | 4 | 1981 | 7–12 | 36.8% | — | 1,624 | 0 | 3 |
| 32 | 1983 | 4–6 | 40.0% | — | 1,653 | 0 | 4 | 1982 | 10–12 | 45.5% | — | 1,546 | 0 | 3 |
| 33 | 1984 | 8–11 | 42.1% | — | 1,616 | 0 | 4 | 1983 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,551 | 0 | 3 |
| 34 | 1985 | 0–4 | 0.0% | — | 1,588 | 0 | 4 | 1984 | 2–4 | 33.3% | — | 1,534 | 0 | 3 |