H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Pam Teeguarden vs Lea Antonoplis H2H: 1-0
Pam Teeguarden holds a 1–0 lead over Lea Antonoplis in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Pam Teeguarden leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Pam Teeguarden won the 1980 US Open second round 4-6 6-4 6-4.
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
–
0
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 67
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 29, 1980* | US Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Pam Teeguarden | 4-6 6-4 6-4 | Lea Antonoplis | 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 |
| Lea Antonoplis | #599 | #66 | 6 | 1,774 | 126 | 176 | 41.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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 | Lea Antonoplis | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1973 | 8–3 | 72.7% | — | 1,579 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1974 | 2–5 | 28.6% | — | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1975 | 3–4 | 42.9% | — | 1,559 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 1968 | 12–17 | 41.4% | — | 1,509 | 0 | 0 | 1976 | 7–6 | 53.8% | — | 1,626 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1969 | 5–11 | 31.2% | — | 1,506 | 0 | 0 | 1977 | 6–4 | 60.0% | — | 1,665 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1970 | 19–19 | 50.0% | — | 1,629 | 0 | 1 | 1978 | 17–20 | 45.9% | — | 1,717 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1971 | 17–21 | 44.7% | — | 1,681 | 0 | 1 | 1979 | 11–13 | 45.8% | — | 1,724 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 1972 | 31–25 | 55.4% | — | 1,874 | 0 | 1 | 1980 | 14–7 | 66.7% | — | 1,735 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | 1973 | 21–22 | 48.8% | — | 1,846 | 0 | 1 | 1981 | 9–11 | 45.0% | — | 1,719 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 1974 | 22–18 | 55.0% | — | 1,905 | 0 | 3 | 1982 | 8–18 | 30.8% | — | 1,632 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 1975 | 21–25 | 45.7% | — | 1,815 | 0 | 3 | 1983 | 6–13 | 31.6% | — | 1,568 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 1976 | 7–14 | 33.3% | — | 1,775 | 0 | 3 | 1984 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #71 | 1,583 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 1977 | 14–20 | 41.2% | — | 1,783 | 0 | 3 | 1985 | 14–21 | 40.0% | #66 | 1,572 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 1978 | 11–19 | 36.7% | — | 1,740 | 0 | 3 | 1986 | 2–14 | 12.5% | #176 | 1,460 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 1979 | 13–19 | 40.6% | — | 1,748 | 0 | 3 | 1987 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #163 | 1,413 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 1980 | 17–16 | 51.5% | — | 1,803 | 0 | 3 | 1988 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #142 | 1,455 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 1981 | 20–19 | 51.3% | — | 1,788 | 0 | 4 | 1989 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #210 | 1,448 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 1982 | 3–10 | 23.1% | — | 1,684 | 0 | 4 | 1990 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #599 | 1,432 | 0 | 2 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |