Agassi played Sampras 5 times in 1999 and lost 4, all in finals. The 1 win of Agassi's was pretty meaningless, in the round robin of the end of year championships. Sampras won the one that mattered, the final. Sampras won 5 tournies, 1 Slam (Wimbledon), 1 Masters, the year end championships, and 2 international series. Agassi won only 4 tournies (out of 17), though 2 Slams, 1 Masters and 1 International. 4 tounrament wins is quite weak for a no.1, though 2 Slams is very impressive. This is very revealing: Agassis' record 63-13, Sampras 39-8. This tells you Sampras played few matches (he was injured alot and missed the US Open, though he started the year poorly too). I can't help but think Agassi's lone year as no.1 was unconvincing: he only finished no.1 because Sampras didn't play much and got injured alot (it's not just missed tournaments, but also Sampras often came into tournaments not match fit and so got knocked out early). I also think in 99 Sampras decided to not bother about the no.1 ranking and concentrate on the most important slams (he voluntarily missed the Oz). I've little doubt Sampras would have won the US if he'd not been injured. I think when you decide no.1 you choose the player who's year you'd most like to have. I would go for Agassi's 99 achievements over Sampras' so I wouldn't dispute the computer ranking. But I don't think Agassi was a convincing no.1. I think while Agassi may have won more, Sampras was still the better player. If I had a choice between a fit 99 Sampras or a fit 99 Agassi to play for my life, I would without hesitation go for the 99 Sampras over Agassi. For me this makes Agassi a lesser champion than Borg, Mac, Connors, Lendl, Sampras and Federer. They were all far more convincing no.1s. Agassi was a great champion but not quite at their level. He was unfortunate to play at the same time as Sampras though.