H2H data updated: 2026-07-20 02:15 UTC
Jim Grabb vs Andres Gomez H2H: 1-0
Jim Grabb holds a 1–0 lead over Andres Gomez in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Jim Grabb leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Jim Grabb won the 1990 Wimbledon first round 6-4 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 62
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
ECU
Age 66
Left-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 27, 1990* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Jim Grabb | 6-4 6-2 6-2 | Andres Gomez | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jim Grabb | #927 | #24 | 760 | 1,828 | 179 | 199 | 47.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Andres Gomez | #1,171 | #4 | 2,005 | 2,092 | 502 | 261 | 65.8% | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 21 |
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 | Jim Grabb | Andres Gomez | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1979 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #61 | 1,638 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1980 | 36–23 | 61.0% | #42 | 1,800 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1985 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #251 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 | 1981 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #37 | 1,899 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1986 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #94 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 | 1982 | 51–25 | 67.1% | #15 | 1,885 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 1987 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #66 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 | 1983 | 43–20 | 68.3% | #14 | 1,959 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 1988 | 17–23 | 42.5% | #91 | 1,562 | 0 | 1 | 1984 | 60–13 | 82.2% | #5 | 2,072 | 0 | 9 |
| 25 | 1989 | 27–20 | 57.4% | #35 | 1,767 | 0 | 1 | 1985 | 26–14 | 65.0% | #15 | 1,970 | 0 | 10 |
| 26 | 1990 | 16–18 | 47.1% | #72 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 | 1986 | 57–20 | 74.0% | #10 | 1,898 | 0 | 14 |
| 27 | 1991 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #87 | 1,679 | 0 | 1 | 1987 | 46–18 | 71.9% | #11 | 1,913 | 0 | 15 |
| 28 | 1992 | 31–24 | 56.4% | #55 | 1,747 | 0 | 2 | 1988 | 34–18 | 65.4% | #24 | 1,808 | 0 | 15 |
| 29 | 1993 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #197 | 1,690 | 0 | 2 | 1989 | 32–17 | 65.3% | #17 | 1,868 | 0 | 17 |
| 30 | 1994 | 18–20 | 47.4% | #68 | 1,669 | 0 | 2 | 1990 | 38–27 | 58.5% | #6 | 1,726 | 1 | 20 |
| 31 | 1995 | 6–17 | 26.1% | #207 | 1,544 | 0 | 2 | 1991 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #70 | 1,722 | 1 | 21 |
| 32 | 1996 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #199 | 1,565 | 0 | 2 | 1992 | 10–12 | 45.5% | #179 | 1,676 | 1 | 21 |
| 33 | 1997 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #342 | 1,516 | 0 | 2 | 1993 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #402 | 1,606 | 1 | 21 |