H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Jim Grabb vs Leonardo Lavalle H2H: 1-0
Jim Grabb holds a 1–0 lead over Leonardo Lavalle in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Jim Grabb leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Jim Grabb won the 1986 Scottsdale fourth round 6-1 6-3.
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
MEX
Age 59
Left-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 10, 1986* | Scottsdale | ATP 250 | R16 | Hard | Jim Grabb | 6-1 6-3 | Leonardo Lavalle | 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 |
| Leonardo Lavalle | #968 | #51 | 483 | 1,728 | 60 | 96 | 38.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Leonardo Lavalle | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1985 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #87 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1986 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #105 | 1,588 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1987 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #224 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1988 | 9–7 | 56.2% | #64 | 1,659 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1985 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #251 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #132 | 1,645 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1986 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #94 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #183 | 1,593 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1987 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #66 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 | 1991 | 5–3 | 62.5% | #133 | 1,656 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 1988 | 17–23 | 42.5% | #91 | 1,562 | 0 | 1 | 1992 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #99 | 1,600 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 1989 | 27–20 | 57.4% | #35 | 1,767 | 0 | 1 | 1993 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #309 | 1,569 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 1990 | 16–18 | 47.1% | #72 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 | 1994 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #213 | 1,543 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 1991 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #87 | 1,679 | 0 | 1 | 1995 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #362 | 1,543 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 1992 | 31–24 | 56.4% | #55 | 1,747 | 0 | 2 | 1996 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #313 | 1,550 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 1993 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #197 | 1,690 | 0 | 2 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #439 | 1,542 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 1994 | 18–20 | 47.4% | #68 | 1,669 | 0 | 2 | 1998 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #400 | 1,552 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |