H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Kim Warwick vs Mark Cox H2H: 0-1
Mark Cox holds a 1–0 lead over Kim Warwick in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Mark Cox leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Mark Cox won the 1976 Nottingham second round 6-3 3-6 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.
AUS
Age 74
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
GBR
Age 83
Left-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 1976* | Nottingham | ATP 250 | R64 | Grass | Mark Cox | 6-3 3-6 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 |
| Mark Cox | #486 | #12 | 0 | 2,009 | 408 | 274 | 59.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 15 |
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 | Mark Cox | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 1974 | 30–23 | 56.6% | #48 | 1,717 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 1975 | 28–24 | 53.8% | #49 | 1,726 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 1976 | 28–32 | 46.7% | #67 | 1,746 | 0 | 1 | 1968 | 52–23 | 69.3% | — | 1,722 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 1977 | 35–29 | 54.7% | #50 | 1,710 | 0 | 1 | 1969 | 35–16 | 68.6% | — | 1,836 | 0 | 4 |
| 26 | 1978 | 29–23 | 55.8% | #41 | 1,788 | 0 | 1 | 1970 | 39–31 | 55.7% | — | 1,796 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 1979 | 37–27 | 57.8% | #52 | 1,804 | 0 | 2 | 1971 | 27–31 | 46.6% | — | 1,815 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 1980 | 39–25 | 60.9% | #36 | 1,926 | 0 | 3 | 1972 | 43–29 | 59.7% | — | 1,871 | 0 | 7 |
| 29 | 1981 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #29 | 1,743 | 0 | 3 | 1973 | 56–28 | 66.7% | #22 | 1,890 | 0 | 10 |
| 30 | 1982 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #36 | 1,799 | 0 | 3 | 1974 | 25–17 | 59.5% | #30 | 1,828 | 0 | 10 |
| 31 | 1983 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #99 | 1,688 | 0 | 3 | 1975 | 31–13 | 70.5% | #25 | 1,915 | 0 | 13 |
| 32 | 1984 | 6–5 | 54.5% | #196 | 1,686 | 0 | 3 | 1976 | 22–15 | 59.5% | #17 | 1,954 | 0 | 14 |
| 33 | 1985 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #497 | 1,664 | 0 | 3 | 1977 | 35–21 | 62.5% | #26 | 1,823 | 0 | 15 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1978 | 15–16 | 48.4% | #68 | 1,765 | 0 | 15 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1979 | 17–16 | 51.5% | #76 | 1,786 | 0 | 15 |
| 36 | 1988 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #600 | 1,652 | 0 | 3 | 1980 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #140 | 1,673 | 0 | 15 |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1981 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #140 | 1,597 | 0 | 15 |