H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Pam Teeguarden vs Joanne Russell H2H: 1-2
Joanne Russell holds a 2–1 lead over Pam Teeguarden in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Joanne Russell leads 2–0 on carpet, while Pam Teeguarden leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Pam Teeguarden won the 1981 Wimbledon first round 6-2 6-7 11-9.
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
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
Age 71
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 24, 1981* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Pam Teeguarden | 6-2 6-7 11-9 | Joanne Russell | Match data |
| Mar 19, 1981* | Boston | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Joanne Russell | 1-6 7-5 7-5 | Pam Teeguarden | Match data |
| Mar 5, 1981* | Los Angeles | WTA 500 | R32 | Carpet | Joanne Russell | 1-6 7-5 6-3 | Pam Teeguarden | 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 |
| Joanne Russell | — | — | — | 1,935 | 203 | 199 | 50.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
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 | Joanne Russell | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1973 | 3–2 | 60.0% | — | 1,544 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1970 | 19–19 | 50.0% | — | 1,629 | 0 | 1 | 1974 | 5–2 | 71.4% | — | 1,582 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 1971 | 17–21 | 44.7% | — | 1,681 | 0 | 1 | 1975 | 17–12 | 58.6% | — | 1,693 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 1972 | 31–25 | 55.4% | — | 1,874 | 0 | 1 | 1976 | 16–14 | 53.3% | — | 1,837 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | 1973 | 21–22 | 48.8% | — | 1,846 | 0 | 1 | 1977 | 19–16 | 54.3% | — | 1,884 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 1974 | 22–18 | 55.0% | — | 1,905 | 0 | 3 | 1978 | 13–16 | 44.8% | — | 1,859 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 1975 | 21–25 | 45.7% | — | 1,815 | 0 | 3 | 1979 | 6–10 | 37.5% | — | 1,776 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 1976 | 7–14 | 33.3% | — | 1,775 | 0 | 3 | 1980 | 30–22 | 57.7% | — | 1,872 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 1977 | 14–20 | 41.2% | — | 1,783 | 0 | 3 | 1981 | 27–23 | 54.0% | — | 1,809 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 1978 | 11–19 | 36.7% | — | 1,740 | 0 | 3 | 1982 | 20–22 | 47.6% | — | 1,825 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 1979 | 13–19 | 40.6% | — | 1,748 | 0 | 3 | 1983 | 11–11 | 50.0% | — | 1,797 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 1980 | 17–16 | 51.5% | — | 1,803 | 0 | 3 | 1984 | 27–17 | 61.4% | — | 1,838 | 0 | 5 |
| 30 | 1981 | 20–19 | 51.3% | — | 1,788 | 0 | 4 | 1985 | 7–20 | 25.9% | — | 1,613 | 0 | 5 |
| 31 | 1982 | 3–10 | 23.1% | — | 1,684 | 0 | 4 | 1986 | 2–10 | 16.7% | — | 1,534 | 0 | 5 |
| 32 | 1983 | 4–6 | 40.0% | — | 1,653 | 0 | 4 | 1987 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,514 | 0 | 5 |
| 33 | 1984 | 8–11 | 42.1% | — | 1,616 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 1985 | 0–4 | 0.0% | — | 1,588 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |