H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Pam Teeguarden vs Mary Carillo H2H: 3-0
Pam Teeguarden holds a 3–0 lead over Mary Carillo in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Pam Teeguarden leads 1–0 on carpet and 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Pam Teeguarden won the 1980 Wimbledon first round 6-2 6-1.
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
3
–
0
3 main draw meetings
Age 69
Left-Handed
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 25, 1980* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Pam Teeguarden | 6-2 6-1 | Mary Carillo | Match data |
| Aug 13, 1979 | Toronto | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Pam Teeguarden | 6-0 6-2 | Mary Carillo | Match data |
| Sep 15, 1976* | Atlanta | WTA 250 | R64 | Carpet | Pam Teeguarden | 6-4 6-3 | Mary Carillo | 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 |
| Mary Carillo | — | — | — | 1,775 | 47 | 45 | 51.1% | 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 | Mary Carillo | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1974 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1969 | 5–11 | 31.2% | — | 1,506 | 0 | 0 | 1975 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1970 | 19–19 | 50.0% | — | 1,629 | 0 | 1 | 1976 | 3–2 | 60.0% | — | 1,548 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1971 | 17–21 | 44.7% | — | 1,681 | 0 | 1 | 1977 | 17–16 | 51.5% | — | 1,685 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 1972 | 31–25 | 55.4% | — | 1,874 | 0 | 1 | 1978 | 1–3 | 25.0% | — | 1,650 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1973 | 21–22 | 48.8% | — | 1,846 | 0 | 1 | 1979 | 24–13 | 64.9% | — | 1,774 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 1974 | 22–18 | 55.0% | — | 1,905 | 0 | 3 | 1980 | 1–8 | 11.1% | — | 1,681 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 1975 | 21–25 | 45.7% | — | 1,815 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 1976 | 7–14 | 33.3% | — | 1,775 | 0 | 3 | 1982 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,676 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 1977 | 14–20 | 41.2% | — | 1,783 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 1978 | 11–19 | 36.7% | — | 1,740 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 1979 | 13–19 | 40.6% | — | 1,748 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 1980 | 17–16 | 51.5% | — | 1,803 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 1981 | 20–19 | 51.3% | — | 1,788 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |