H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Sharon Walsh Pete vs Ching Ling Chang H2H: 0-1
Ching Ling Chang holds a 1–0 lead over Sharon Walsh Pete in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Ching Ling Chang leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Ching Ling Chang won the 1973 Indianapolis third round 6-2 6-2.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
Age 74
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
Age 78
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 16, 1973* | Indianapolis | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Ching Ling Chang | 6-2 6-2 | Sharon Walsh Pete | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sharon Walsh Pete | — | — | — | 1,894 | 300 | 340 | 46.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Ching Ling Chang | — | — | — | 1,500 | 13 | 41 | 24.1% | 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 | Sharon Walsh Pete | Ching Ling Chang | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1968 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1969 | 4–6 | 40.0% | — | 1,524 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1970 | 32–16 | 66.7% | — | 1,833 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1971 | 10–10 | 50.0% | — | 1,707 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1972 | 32–27 | 54.2% | — | 1,729 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 1973 | 37–33 | 52.9% | — | 1,653 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 1974 | 27–19 | 58.7% | — | 1,774 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 1975 | 9–25 | 26.5% | — | 1,661 | 0 | 7 | 1971 | 0–5 | 0.0% | — | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1976 | 7–10 | 41.2% | — | 1,620 | 0 | 7 | 1972 | 0–3 | 0.0% | — | 1,435 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1977 | 17–21 | 44.7% | — | 1,722 | 0 | 7 | 1973 | 5–11 | 31.2% | — | 1,441 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1978 | 15–27 | 35.7% | — | 1,677 | 0 | 7 | 1974 | 8–16 | 33.3% | — | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1979 | 14–22 | 38.9% | — | 1,620 | 0 | 7 | 1975 | 0–6 | 0.0% | — | 1,412 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1980 | 16–19 | 45.7% | — | 1,712 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 1981 | 25–17 | 59.5% | — | 1,841 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 1982 | 10–19 | 34.5% | — | 1,758 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1983 | 15–13 | 53.6% | — | 1,810 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 1984 | 8–12 | 40.0% | — | 1,808 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 1985 | 8–17 | 32.0% | — | 1,627 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 1986 | 2–4 | 33.3% | — | 1,602 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 1987 | 11–15 | 42.3% | — | 1,598 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 1988 | 0–6 | 0.0% | — | 1,507 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |