H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Todd Martin vs Jim Grabb H2H: 3-1
Todd Martin holds a 3–1 lead over Jim Grabb in their ATP head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Todd Martin leads 2–0 on hard courts, while Jim Grabb leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Todd Martin won the 1997 San Jose fourth round 6-3 7-6(5).
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 56
Right-Handed
198 cm / 6'6"
H2H
3
–
1
4 main draw meetings
USA
Age 62
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 14, 1997* | San Jose | ATP 250 | R16 | Hard | Todd Martin | 6-3 7-6(5) | Jim Grabb | Match data |
| Nov 7, 1996* | Stockholm | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Todd Martin | 6-2 3-6 7-6(1) | Jim Grabb | Match data |
| Jun 28, 1996* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R64 | Grass | Todd Martin | 6-2 6-4 7-6(5) | Jim Grabb | Match data |
| Feb 18, 1994* | Philadelphia | ATP 250 | R16 | Carpet | Jim Grabb | 6-4 3-6 6-4 | Todd Martin | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Todd Martin | #145 | #4 | 2,969 | 2,063 | 398 | 222 | 64.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 |
| Jim Grabb | #927 | #24 | 760 | 1,828 | 179 | 199 | 47.4% | 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 | Todd Martin | Jim Grabb | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | 1990 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #269 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1991 | 10–8 | 55.6% | #134 | 1,648 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 1992 | 22–19 | 53.7% | #87 | 1,724 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #251 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1993 | 45–23 | 66.2% | #13 | 1,886 | 0 | 1 | 1986 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #94 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1994 | 50–19 | 72.5% | #10 | 1,943 | 0 | 3 | 1987 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #66 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 1995 | 45–21 | 68.2% | #18 | 1,912 | 0 | 4 | 1988 | 17–23 | 42.5% | #91 | 1,562 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 1996 | 49–20 | 71.0% | #12 | 1,926 | 0 | 5 | 1989 | 27–20 | 57.4% | #35 | 1,767 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 1997 | 13–7 | 65.0% | #81 | 1,914 | 0 | 5 | 1990 | 16–18 | 47.1% | #72 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 1998 | 43–20 | 68.3% | #16 | 1,998 | 0 | 7 | 1991 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #87 | 1,679 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 1999 | 42–17 | 71.2% | #7 | 1,914 | 0 | 8 | 1992 | 31–24 | 56.4% | #55 | 1,747 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2000 | 14–11 | 56.0% | #55 | 1,887 | 0 | 8 | 1993 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #197 | 1,690 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2001 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #57 | 1,823 | 0 | 8 | 1994 | 18–20 | 47.4% | #68 | 1,669 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 2002 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #47 | 1,788 | 0 | 8 | 1995 | 6–17 | 26.1% | #207 | 1,544 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | 2003 | 15–11 | 57.7% | #68 | 1,828 | 0 | 8 | 1996 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #199 | 1,565 | 0 | 2 |
| 33 | 2004 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #145 | 1,684 | 0 | 8 | 1997 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #342 | 1,516 | 0 | 2 |