H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
David Wheaton vs Jim Grabb H2H: 2-1
David Wheaton holds a 2–1 lead over Jim Grabb in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while David Wheaton leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Jim Grabb won the 1996 San Jose third round 1-6 6-4 7-5.
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 57
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
USA
Age 62
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 15, 1996* | San Jose | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Jim Grabb | 1-6 6-4 7-5 | David Wheaton | Match data |
| Oct 10, 1991* | Tokyo Indoor | ATP 250 | R32 | Carpet | David Wheaton | 7-6(2) 3-6 6-2 | Jim Grabb | Match data |
| Mar 16, 1991* | Miami Masters | Masters 1000 | R128 | Hard | David Wheaton | 6-3 3-6 6-1 | Jim Grabb | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| David Wheaton | #874 | #12 | 1,506 | 1,984 | 231 | 190 | 54.9% | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
| Jim Grabb | #927 | #24 | 760 | 1,828 | 179 | 199 | 47.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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 | David Wheaton | Jim Grabb | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 1986 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #785 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1987 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #345 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1988 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #441 | 1,494 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1989 | 18–16 | 52.9% | #66 | 1,683 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 1990 | 35–20 | 63.6% | #27 | 1,873 | 0 | 1 | 1985 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #251 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1991 | 33–19 | 63.5% | #17 | 1,955 | 0 | 2 | 1986 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #94 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1992 | 30–23 | 56.6% | #44 | 1,804 | 0 | 2 | 1987 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #66 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 1993 | 27–25 | 51.9% | #54 | 1,730 | 0 | 2 | 1988 | 17–23 | 42.5% | #91 | 1,562 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 1994 | 28–18 | 60.9% | #39 | 1,782 | 0 | 3 | 1989 | 27–20 | 57.4% | #35 | 1,767 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 1995 | 28–24 | 53.8% | #44 | 1,705 | 0 | 3 | 1990 | 16–18 | 47.1% | #72 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 1996 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #131 | 1,704 | 0 | 3 | 1991 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #87 | 1,679 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 1997 | 10–8 | 55.6% | #148 | 1,704 | 0 | 3 | 1992 | 31–24 | 56.4% | #55 | 1,747 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 1998 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #229 | 1,620 | 0 | 3 | 1993 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #197 | 1,690 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 1999 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #565 | 1,582 | 0 | 3 | 1994 | 18–20 | 47.4% | #68 | 1,669 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 2000 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #313 | 1,562 | 0 | 3 | 1995 | 6–17 | 26.1% | #207 | 1,544 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #199 | 1,565 | 0 | 2 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #342 | 1,516 | 0 | 2 |