H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Vania King vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 1-0
Vania King holds a 1–0 lead over Kimiko Date Krumm in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Vania King leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Vania King won the 2011 Seoul 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.
USA
Age 37
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
Age 55
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 22, 2011* | Seoul | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Vania King | 6-2 6-2 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vania King | #824 | #50 | 1,225 | 1,760 | 128 | 160 | 44.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 | Vania King | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #164 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2006 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #60 | 1,661 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2007 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #109 | 1,608 | 0 | 1 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2008 | 7–19 | 26.9% | #128 | 1,512 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2009 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #80 | 1,588 | 0 | 1 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2010 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #86 | 1,595 | 0 | 1 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2011 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #76 | 1,689 | 0 | 1 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2012 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #69 | 1,614 | 0 | 1 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #85 | 1,630 | 0 | 1 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2014 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #111 | 1,641 | 0 | 1 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #410 | 1,627 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2016 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #78 | 1,643 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2017 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #492 | 1,590 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2018 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #356 | 1,559 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 |