H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 14:16 UTC
Jim Grabb vs Thomas Hogstedt H2H: 1-1
Jim Grabb and Thomas Hogstedt are tied 1–1 in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Thomas Hogstedt leads 1–0 on carpet, while Jim Grabb leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Thomas Hogstedt won the 1991 Paris Masters second round 3-6 7-5 7-6(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
–
1
2 main draw meetings
SWE
Age 62
Right-Handed
190 cm / 6'3"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 30, 1991* | Paris Masters | Masters 1000 | R64 | Carpet | Thomas Hogstedt | 3-6 7-5 7-6(2) | Jim Grabb | Match data |
| Nov 4, 1987* | Stockholm | ATP 250 | R64 | Hard | Jim Grabb | 7-6 7-6 | Thomas Hogstedt | 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 |
| Thomas Hogstedt | #1,032 | #38 | 413 | 1,736 | 90 | 153 | 37.0% | 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 | Thomas Hogstedt | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1979 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #368 | 1,521 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1981 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #549 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1982 | 9–10 | 47.4% | #82 | 1,588 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1983 | 15–16 | 48.4% | #63 | 1,690 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1984 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #84 | 1,639 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 1985 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #251 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #210 | 1,520 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1986 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #94 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 | 1986 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #124 | 1,504 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 1987 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #66 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 | 1987 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #179 | 1,508 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 1988 | 17–23 | 42.5% | #91 | 1,562 | 0 | 1 | 1988 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #159 | 1,521 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 1989 | 27–20 | 57.4% | #35 | 1,767 | 0 | 1 | 1989 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #133 | 1,613 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 1990 | 16–18 | 47.1% | #72 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 12–26 | 31.6% | #91 | 1,509 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 1991 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #87 | 1,679 | 0 | 1 | 1991 | 11–23 | 32.4% | #130 | 1,518 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 1992 | 31–24 | 56.4% | #55 | 1,747 | 0 | 2 | 1992 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #181 | 1,547 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 1993 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #197 | 1,690 | 0 | 2 | 1993 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #306 | 1,530 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 1994 | 18–20 | 47.4% | #68 | 1,669 | 0 | 2 | 1994 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #309 | 1,546 | 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |