Controversially the ATP top 3 rankings for 1977 were: 1. Connors 2. Vilas 3. Borg This was controversial because Connors didn't win any grand slams, and won 7 tournaments while Borg won Wimbledon (and 11 tournaments in total) and Vilas won the French and US Opens (and a staggering 16 tournies in total). The reason the computer made Connors 1 is clear: he got to the finals of by far the 2 most important tournies at the time (Wimbledon and US Open. In those days they were in a league of their own and far more important than the other 2 grand slams). Therefore Connors had the best record over the course of those 2 tournies, winning 12 matches compared to 9 for Vilas, and 10 for Borg. Connors also won the Masters and Dallas WCT, at the time far more important than the Australian Open and in all seriousness virtually as important as the French. However, it's impossible to give the no.1 spot to Connors, because Vilas and Borg won 1 of the big 2 each, as well as having a great year outside the big 2. I'm a Connors fan and am convinced that he played a higher level of tennis than Vilas for most of the year (and I feel Connors was easily a greater player than Vilas) , but feel Connors must have the no.3 spot because when it comes down to it, we must decide rankings on results rather than performances. Many say Vilas should be no.1 for 1977, but I don't. I give it to Borg, with Vilas 2. Here's why: 1. Borg's Wimbledon victory is more impressive than Vilas' grand slam victories. This is because Borg beat Connors in the final: Connors was along with Borg the only contender for the title of being the world's greatest grass-court player. Vilas won the French and US without facing Borg, who was injured. So Vilas won 2 grandslams on clay without facing the world's greatest clay court player. There is very little doubt Borg would have beaten Vilas at Roland Garros, and Borg would probably have done the same at Forest Hills. Vilas' win against Connors at Forest Hills was very impressive, but there still is a a very major question mark over what would have happened had Borg faced Vilas at the US Open. There is no question mark over Borg's 77 Wimbledon victory. 2, Borg won more demanding tournies full stop Vilas may have won 16 tournaments to Borg's 11, but most of Vilas' tournament wins were minor. Of Vilas' 16 tournie wins only 6 involved his having to beat a top ten player, while Borg had to beat at least 1 top ten player for 10 out of 11. As it happens Connors and Vilas both won 6 tournies involving beating a top tenner. For me Vilas gets the nod over Connors not because of his 16 tournie wins over Connors' 7, but because of his US Open victory. Connors' Masters and Dallas victories is like winning 2 French, but can't compete with a US Open along with a French. So in my view Borg's Wimbledon not only more impressive than Vilas' 2 grand slams, but his lesser tournie wins surpass Vilas' lesser tournie wins. 2. Borg won their head to head 3-0. Borg was always a better player than Vilas and 1977 was no different. I believe Vilas was a great player and it's right he's in the Hall of Fame, but really he belongs with tier 3 champions like Chang, Stich, Ivanisevic, Kafelnikov, Noah etc. and Borg is a serious GOAT contender. 3. Borg was more versatile: In 77 Borg won tournies on grass, hard, carpet and clay. Vilas did well but not quite as well: he won on clay, hard, and carpet but not grass. 4. Borg's Wimbledon victory is more impressive than Vilas' grand slam victories. This is because Borg beat Connors in the final: Connors was Borg's only serious rival for the title of being the world's greatest grass-court player. Vilas won the French and US without facing Borg, who was injured. So Vilas won 2 grandslams on clay without facing the world's greatest clay court player. There is very little doubt Borg would have beaten Vilas at Roland Garros, and Borg would probably have done the same at Forest Hills. 5. It's vital not to judge 1997 from 2007 eyes. Today there's little difference between the 4 slams, and if Vilas and Borg had got the same results in 2007, Vilas would be clear no.1, winning 2 slams to Borg's 1 and finishing runner-up in Australia. However, Australia was very minor then, and the French much less important than it is now. So in my view, Borg's superior tough head to head record and higher quality wins more than compensates for Vilas' extra grand slam in the form of the less important French.