H2H data updated: 2026-07-17 14:15 UTC
Jim Grabb vs Todd Woodbridge H2H: 3-1
Jim Grabb holds a 3–1 lead over Todd Woodbridge in their ATP head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Jim Grabb leads 2–0 on carpet, while they are tied 1–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Jim Grabb won the 1994 Beijing third round 3-6 6-2 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
3
–
1
4 main draw meetings
AUS
Age 55
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 20, 1994* | Beijing | ATP 250 | R32 | Carpet | Jim Grabb | 3-6 6-2 6-3 | Todd Woodbridge | Match data |
| Aug 15, 1992* | Cincinnati Masters | Masters 1000 | R16 | Hard | Jim Grabb | 6-2 7-6(4) | Todd Woodbridge | Match data |
| Feb 21, 1992* | Philadelphia | ATP 250 | R16 | Carpet | Jim Grabb | 7-6(3) 6-4 | Todd Woodbridge | Match data |
| Oct 3, 1991* | Sydney Indoor | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Todd Woodbridge | 6-3 4-6 6-2 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jim Grabb | #927 | #24 | 760 | 1,828 | 179 | 199 | 47.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Todd Woodbridge | #1,151 | #19 | 1,575 | 1,857 | 237 | 229 | 50.9% | 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 | Jim Grabb | Todd Woodbridge | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1988 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #213 | 1,453 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1989 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #131 | 1,573 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1990 | 16–17 | 48.5% | #50 | 1,704 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1991 | 23–25 | 47.9% | #77 | 1,702 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1985 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #251 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 25–22 | 53.2% | #54 | 1,684 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1986 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #94 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 19–20 | 48.7% | #109 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1987 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #66 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 | 1994 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #90 | 1,661 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1988 | 17–23 | 42.5% | #91 | 1,562 | 0 | 1 | 1995 | 32–22 | 59.3% | #33 | 1,810 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 1989 | 27–20 | 57.4% | #35 | 1,767 | 0 | 1 | 1996 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #36 | 1,744 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 1990 | 16–18 | 47.1% | #72 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 | 1997 | 31–20 | 60.8% | #26 | 1,796 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 1991 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #87 | 1,679 | 0 | 1 | 1998 | 21–21 | 50.0% | #65 | 1,714 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 1992 | 31–24 | 56.4% | #55 | 1,747 | 0 | 2 | 1999 | 8–16 | 33.3% | #197 | 1,601 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 1993 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #197 | 1,690 | 0 | 2 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #187 | 1,588 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 1994 | 18–20 | 47.4% | #68 | 1,669 | 0 | 2 | 2001 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #207 | 1,596 | 0 | 2 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |