H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Kim Warwick vs Danie Visser H2H: 0-1
Danie Visser holds a 1–0 lead over Kim Warwick in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Danie Visser leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Danie Visser won the 1981 Johannesburg third round 6-4 7-6.
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
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
RSA
Age 64
Left-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 26, 1981* | Johannesburg | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Danie Visser | 6-4 7-6 | 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 |
| Danie Visser | #749 | #59 | 191 | 1,709 | 92 | 129 | 41.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Danie Visser | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1981 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,505 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1972 | 11–9 | 55.0% | — | 1,569 | 0 | 0 | 1982 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #93 | 1,482 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1973 | 11–22 | 33.3% | #108 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 | 1983 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #138 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1974 | 30–23 | 56.6% | #48 | 1,717 | 0 | 0 | 1984 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #72 | 1,620 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1975 | 28–24 | 53.8% | #49 | 1,726 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 13–20 | 39.4% | #145 | 1,642 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1976 | 28–32 | 46.7% | #67 | 1,746 | 0 | 1 | 1986 | 15–14 | 51.7% | #83 | 1,676 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1977 | 35–29 | 54.7% | #50 | 1,710 | 0 | 1 | 1987 | 11–16 | 40.7% | #136 | 1,635 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1978 | 29–23 | 55.8% | #41 | 1,788 | 0 | 1 | 1988 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #143 | 1,591 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 1979 | 37–27 | 57.8% | #52 | 1,804 | 0 | 2 | 1989 | 10–13 | 43.5% | #141 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 1980 | 39–25 | 60.9% | #36 | 1,926 | 0 | 3 | 1990 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #197 | 1,651 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 1981 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #29 | 1,743 | 0 | 3 | 1991 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #405 | 1,642 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 1982 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #36 | 1,799 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1983 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #99 | 1,688 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 1984 | 6–5 | 54.5% | #196 | 1,686 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 1985 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #497 | 1,664 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 1988 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #600 | 1,652 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |