H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Kim Warwick vs Tomas Smid H2H: 0-4
Tomas Smid holds a 4–0 lead over Kim Warwick in their ATP head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Tomas Smid leads 2–0 on hard courts and 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Tomas Smid won the 1985 Hong Kong third round 3-6 6-3 6-1.
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
–
4
4 main draw meetings
CZE
Age 70
Right-Handed
190 cm / 6'3"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 21, 1985* | Hong Kong | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Tomas Smid | 3-6 6-3 6-1 | Kim Warwick | Match data |
| Feb 12, 1982* | Richmond Wct | ATP 250 | R16 | Carpet | Tomas Smid | 6-2 6-0 | Kim Warwick | Match data |
| Mar 15, 1980* | Stuttgart Indoor | ATP 250 | SF | Hard | Tomas Smid | 6-1 2-6 6-3 | Kim Warwick | Match data |
| Apr 14, 1978* | Monte Carlo Wct | ATP 250 | R16 | Clay | Tomas Smid | 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 |
| Tomas Smid | #975 | #11 | 28 | 1,998 | 497 | 318 | 61.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 |
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 | Tomas Smid | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1976 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #154 | 1,542 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1973 | 11–22 | 33.3% | #108 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 | 1977 | 16–18 | 47.1% | #67 | 1,637 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1974 | 30–23 | 56.6% | #48 | 1,717 | 0 | 0 | 1978 | 36–25 | 59.0% | #36 | 1,799 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 1975 | 28–24 | 53.8% | #49 | 1,726 | 0 | 0 | 1979 | 50–25 | 66.7% | #27 | 1,870 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 1976 | 28–32 | 46.7% | #67 | 1,746 | 0 | 1 | 1980 | 45–21 | 68.2% | #23 | 1,950 | 0 | 4 |
| 25 | 1977 | 35–29 | 54.7% | #50 | 1,710 | 0 | 1 | 1981 | 54–28 | 65.9% | #28 | 1,864 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 1978 | 29–23 | 55.8% | #41 | 1,788 | 0 | 1 | 1982 | 62–28 | 68.9% | #24 | 1,901 | 0 | 7 |
| 27 | 1979 | 37–27 | 57.8% | #52 | 1,804 | 0 | 2 | 1983 | 59–30 | 66.3% | #17 | 1,902 | 0 | 9 |
| 28 | 1980 | 39–25 | 60.9% | #36 | 1,926 | 0 | 3 | 1984 | 46–27 | 63.0% | #16 | 1,840 | 0 | 9 |
| 29 | 1981 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #29 | 1,743 | 0 | 3 | 1985 | 47–27 | 63.5% | #19 | 1,804 | 0 | 10 |
| 30 | 1982 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #36 | 1,799 | 0 | 3 | 1986 | 28–24 | 53.8% | #54 | 1,721 | 0 | 10 |
| 31 | 1983 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #99 | 1,688 | 0 | 3 | 1987 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #31 | 1,729 | 0 | 10 |
| 32 | 1984 | 6–5 | 54.5% | #196 | 1,686 | 0 | 3 | 1988 | 17–23 | 42.5% | #115 | 1,656 | 0 | 10 |
| 33 | 1985 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #497 | 1,664 | 0 | 3 | 1989 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #453 | 1,537 | 0 | 10 |
| 36 | 1988 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #600 | 1,652 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |