H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Tina Mochizuki vs Laura Arraya H2H: 0-2
Laura Arraya holds a 2–0 lead over Tina Mochizuki in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Laura Arraya leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Laura Arraya won the 1986 Charleston fourth round 6-3 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.
Age 73
H2H
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
PER
Age 62
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 25, 1986* | Charleston | WTA 500 | R16 | Clay | Laura Arraya | 6-3 6-1 | Tina Mochizuki | Match data |
| Oct 15, 1983* | Tokyo Borden | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Laura Arraya | 3-6 7-5 6-1 | Tina Mochizuki | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tina Mochizuki | — | — | — | 1,684 | 84 | 134 | 38.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Laura Arraya | #192 | #14 | 51 | 1,922 | 270 | 204 | 57.0% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 10 |
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 | Tina Mochizuki | Laura Arraya | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1968 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1969 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,449 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1970 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,425 | 0 | 0 | 1981 | 19–8 | 70.4% | — | 1,683 | 0 | 4 |
| 18 | 1971 | 2–3 | 40.0% | — | 1,445 | 0 | 0 | 1982 | 33–17 | 66.0% | — | 1,741 | 0 | 7 |
| 19 | 1972 | 3–5 | 37.5% | — | 1,433 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 23–23 | 50.0% | — | 1,713 | 0 | 7 |
| 20 | 1973 | 3–2 | 60.0% | — | 1,465 | 0 | 0 | 1984 | 29–18 | 61.7% | #34 | 1,760 | 0 | 8 |
| 21 | 1974 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,454 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 17–21 | 44.7% | #63 | 1,693 | 0 | 8 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1986 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #33 | 1,718 | 0 | 8 |
| 23 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1987 | 16–14 | 53.3% | #45 | 1,770 | 0 | 8 |
| 25 | 1978 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,439 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 27–12 | 69.2% | #19 | 1,882 | 0 | 10 |
| 26 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1990 | 26–19 | 57.8% | #21 | 1,821 | 0 | 10 |
| 27 | 1980 | 15–10 | 60.0% | — | 1,553 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 28–17 | 62.2% | #24 | 1,823 | 0 | 10 |
| 28 | 1981 | 13–7 | 65.0% | — | 1,614 | 0 | 1 | 1992 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #45 | 1,734 | 0 | 10 |
| 29 | 1982 | 6–3 | 66.7% | — | 1,642 | 0 | 1 | 1993 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #71 | 1,683 | 0 | 10 |
| 30 | 1983 | 11–13 | 45.8% | — | 1,606 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1984 | 5–17 | 22.7% | — | 1,456 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 1985 | 5–12 | 29.4% | — | 1,477 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 1986 | 11–19 | 36.7% | — | 1,523 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 1987 | 8–25 | 24.2% | — | 1,457 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 1988 | 2–11 | 15.4% | — | 1,413 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |