H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Kim Warwick vs Cliff Richey H2H: 1-2
Cliff Richey holds a 2–1 lead over Kim Warwick in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Cliff Richey leads 2–0 on carpet, while Kim Warwick leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Kim Warwick won the 1977 Queen's Club second round 9-8 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.
AUS
Age 74
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
USA
Age 79
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 1977* | Queen's Club | ATP 250 | R64 | Grass | Kim Warwick | 9-8 6-2 | Cliff Richey | Match data |
| Apr 1, 1977* | Los Angeles Psw | ATP 250 | R16 | Carpet | Cliff Richey | 7-5 6-3 | Kim Warwick | Match data |
| Jan 29, 1976* | Baltimore | ATP 250 | R16 | Carpet | Cliff Richey | 6-4 6-3 | Kim Warwick | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kim Warwick | #1,294 | #15 | 15 | 1,945 | 290 | 273 | 51.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Cliff Richey | #662 | #16 | 0 | 2,112 | 488 | 224 | 68.5% | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 23 |
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 | Kim Warwick | Cliff Richey | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 1969 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1970 | 6–8 | 42.9% | — | 1,472 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1971 | 4–7 | 36.4% | — | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1972 | 11–9 | 55.0% | — | 1,569 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 1973 | 11–22 | 33.3% | #108 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 | 1968 | 46–15 | 75.4% | — | 1,750 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 1974 | 30–23 | 56.6% | #48 | 1,717 | 0 | 0 | 1969 | 64–18 | 78.0% | — | 1,946 | 0 | 9 |
| 23 | 1975 | 28–24 | 53.8% | #49 | 1,726 | 0 | 0 | 1970 | 88–24 | 78.6% | — | 2,047 | 0 | 14 |
| 24 | 1976 | 28–32 | 46.7% | #67 | 1,746 | 0 | 1 | 1971 | 67–23 | 74.4% | — | 1,906 | 0 | 17 |
| 25 | 1977 | 35–29 | 54.7% | #50 | 1,710 | 0 | 1 | 1972 | 54–24 | 69.2% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 20 |
| 26 | 1978 | 29–23 | 55.8% | #41 | 1,788 | 0 | 1 | 1973 | 47–26 | 64.4% | #19 | 1,848 | 0 | 20 |
| 27 | 1979 | 37–27 | 57.8% | #52 | 1,804 | 0 | 2 | 1974 | 25–16 | 61.0% | #23 | 1,891 | 0 | 21 |
| 28 | 1980 | 39–25 | 60.9% | #36 | 1,926 | 0 | 3 | 1975 | 37–24 | 60.7% | #32 | 1,855 | 0 | 21 |
| 29 | 1981 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #29 | 1,743 | 0 | 3 | 1976 | 33–24 | 57.9% | #28 | 1,848 | 0 | 22 |
| 30 | 1982 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #36 | 1,799 | 0 | 3 | 1977 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #97 | 1,714 | 0 | 22 |
| 31 | 1983 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #99 | 1,688 | 0 | 3 | 1978 | 13–12 | 52.0% | #57 | 1,705 | 0 | 23 |
| 32 | 1984 | 6–5 | 54.5% | #196 | 1,686 | 0 | 3 | 1979 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #662 | 1,693 | 0 | 23 |
| 33 | 1985 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #497 | 1,664 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 1988 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #600 | 1,652 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |