H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Zina Garrison vs Hu Na H2H: 4-0
Zina Garrison holds a 4–0 lead over Hu Na in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Zina Garrison leads 2–0 on hard courts and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Zina Garrison won the 1989 Birmingham third round 6-3 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 62
Right-Handed
164 cm / 5'5"
H2H
4
–
0
4 main draw meetings
Age 63
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 1989* | Birmingham | WTA 250 | R32 | Grass | Zina Garrison | 6-3 6-4 | Hu Na | Match data |
| Oct 29, 1988* | Indianapolis | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Zina Garrison | 6-1 7-6 | Hu Na | Match data |
| Feb 20, 1988* | Oakland | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Zina Garrison | 6-2 6-0 | Hu Na | Match data |
| Apr 17, 1986* | Amelia Island | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Zina Garrison | 6-1 6-3 | Hu Na | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zina Garrison | #318 | #4 | 134 | 2,142 | 581 | 268 | 68.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 14 | 15 |
| Hu Na | — | — | — | 1,701 | 60 | 94 | 39.0% | 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 | Zina Garrison | Hu Na | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1980 | 2–2 | 50.0% | — | 1,529 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1981 | 5–5 | 50.0% | — | 1,568 | 0 | 1 | 1980 | 2–3 | 40.0% | — | 1,504 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1982 | 23–15 | 60.5% | — | 1,853 | 0 | 1 | 1981 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,496 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1983 | 38–18 | 67.9% | — | 1,989 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1984 | 47–20 | 70.1% | #9 | 2,012 | 0 | 2 | 1983 | 1–3 | 25.0% | — | 1,482 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1985 | 51–18 | 73.9% | #8 | 2,032 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 1986 | 48–22 | 68.6% | #11 | 1,999 | 0 | 5 | 1985 | 6–9 | 40.0% | — | 1,537 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1987 | 44–17 | 72.1% | #9 | 1,987 | 0 | 7 | 1986 | 11–16 | 40.7% | — | 1,575 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1988 | 49–20 | 71.0% | #9 | 2,021 | 0 | 7 | 1987 | 17–18 | 48.6% | — | 1,654 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1989 | 60–15 | 80.0% | #4 | 2,130 | 0 | 10 | 1988 | 8–18 | 30.8% | — | 1,584 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1990 | 48–18 | 72.7% | #10 | 2,039 | 0 | 11 | 1989 | 8–13 | 38.1% | — | 1,577 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1991 | 37–18 | 67.3% | #12 | 1,963 | 0 | 11 | 1990 | 7–12 | 36.8% | — | 1,560 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1992 | 36–19 | 65.5% | #18 | 1,924 | 0 | 12 | 1991 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,541 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 1993 | 43–19 | 69.4% | #14 | 1,995 | 0 | 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 1994 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #24 | 1,889 | 0 | 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1995 | 25–16 | 61.0% | #22 | 1,868 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 1996 | 1–10 | 9.1% | #273 | 1,704 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |