H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Timea Babos vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 1-1
Timea Babos and Kimiko Date Krumm are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Kimiko Date Krumm won the 2014 Monterrey fourth round 6-4 6-7(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.
HUN
Age 33
Right-Handed
179 cm / 5'10"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
Age 55
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 4, 2014* | Monterrey | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Kimiko Date Krumm | 6-4 6-7(4) 6-4 | Timea Babos | Match data |
| Apr 12, 2012* | Copenhagen | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Timea Babos | 1-6 7-6(4) 7-5 | Kimiko Date Krumm | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Timea Babos | #453 | #25 | 1,675 | 1,768 | 123 | 177 | 41.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Kimiko Date Krumm | — | — | — | 2,091 | 241 | 188 | 56.2% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 8 |
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 | Timea Babos | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #268 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #154 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2012 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #67 | 1,553 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2013 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #88 | 1,540 | 0 | 1 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2014 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #99 | 1,482 | 0 | 1 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2015 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #70 | 1,564 | 0 | 1 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2016 | 35–27 | 56.5% | #28 | 1,712 | 0 | 1 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 2017 | 20–26 | 43.5% | #57 | 1,637 | 0 | 2 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2018 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #59 | 1,614 | 0 | 3 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 2019 | 6–16 | 27.3% | #89 | 1,595 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2020 | 0–6 | 0.0% | #115 | 1,542 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2021 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #160 | 1,497 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #336 | 1,455 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2023 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #188 | 1,480 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2024 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #338 | 1,451 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 2,042 | 0 | 7 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 6–11 | 35.3% | — | 1,841 | 0 | 8 |
| 39 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 19–18 | 51.4% | — | 1,814 | 0 | 8 |
| 40 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 7–24 | 22.6% | — | 1,567 | 0 | 8 |
| 41 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 2–14 | 12.5% | — | 1,454 | 0 | 8 |
| 42 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 12–15 | 44.4% | — | 1,575 | 0 | 8 |
| 43 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 11–14 | 44.0% | — | 1,597 | 0 | 8 |
| 44 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 3–6 | 33.3% | — | 1,574 | 0 | 8 |
| 46 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,564 | 0 | 8 |