H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Pam Teeguarden vs Wendy Overton H2H: 1-4
Wendy Overton holds a 4–1 lead over Pam Teeguarden in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, Wendy Overton leads 3–0 on carpet, while Pam Teeguarden leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Wendy Overton won the 1976 Chicago fourth round 6-2 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
–
4
5 main draw meetings
Age 79
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 30, 1976* | Chicago | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Wendy Overton | 6-2 6-4 | Pam Teeguarden | Match data |
| Aug 31, 1974* | US Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Grass | Pam Teeguarden | 6-3 6-1 | Wendy Overton | Match data |
| Apr 1, 1973* | Tucson | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Wendy Overton | 6-1 6-4 | Pam Teeguarden | Match data |
| Mar 10, 1972* | Dallas | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Wendy Overton | 7-5 6-1 | Pam Teeguarden | Match data |
| Jan 29, 1972* | Boston | WTA 250 | R32 | Carpet | Wendy Overton | 6-1 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 |
| Wendy Overton | — | — | — | 1,920 | 123 | 142 | 46.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Wendy Overton | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1971 | 17–21 | 44.7% | — | 1,681 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 1972 | 31–25 | 55.4% | — | 1,874 | 0 | 1 | 1968 | 2–1 | 66.7% | — | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1973 | 21–22 | 48.8% | — | 1,846 | 0 | 1 | 1969 | 7–4 | 63.6% | — | 1,604 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1974 | 22–18 | 55.0% | — | 1,905 | 0 | 3 | 1970 | 6–11 | 35.3% | — | 1,603 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1975 | 21–25 | 45.7% | — | 1,815 | 0 | 3 | 1971 | 9–9 | 50.0% | — | 1,689 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1976 | 7–14 | 33.3% | — | 1,775 | 0 | 3 | 1972 | 40–30 | 57.1% | — | 1,897 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1977 | 14–20 | 41.2% | — | 1,783 | 0 | 3 | 1973 | 14–23 | 37.8% | — | 1,754 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1978 | 11–19 | 36.7% | — | 1,740 | 0 | 3 | 1974 | 12–18 | 40.0% | — | 1,775 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1979 | 13–19 | 40.6% | — | 1,748 | 0 | 3 | 1975 | 17–14 | 54.8% | — | 1,855 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 1980 | 17–16 | 51.5% | — | 1,803 | 0 | 3 | 1976 | 10–17 | 37.0% | — | 1,755 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 1981 | 20–19 | 51.3% | — | 1,788 | 0 | 4 | 1977 | 5–11 | 31.2% | — | 1,715 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 1982 | 3–10 | 23.1% | — | 1,684 | 0 | 4 | 1978 | 1–4 | 20.0% | — | 1,650 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |