I know all of this and none of this is representative of how good these players were in relation to each other because unlike in today's era a player could pad his results significantly by playing many smaller events in place of deeper, popular events where all the big boys were. It is an inflated percentage. Inflated by playing in smaller events where Borg and Connors and many more great players weren't. Stan Smith was an old man by this time. He was 30 years old and won a single title that year, a minor one in Los Angeles. Nastase reached the age of 31 in 1977 and was past his prime. He was still a pretty good player, but barely stayed within the top 10. Well, we know that he beat Connors at Forrest Hills. It's quite an accomplishment. The other guys you've listed are all pretty good players but are mostly the kinds of guys you would see attend events like Washington, Valencia or Chennai. Good, but not elite, although Gottfied was a really strong player and was probably around his peak at this time. A closer look at the draws shows that the really big names are missing. The Kitzbuhel draw for example where Vilas played Kodes (a washed up player by this time) is weak. As is the Washington draw. Louisville, South Orange, Columbia - all of these are minor events. What was stopping Vilas from playing in Boston, Indianapolis or Cincinnati? You're also neglecting to mention that most of these wins were on Vilas' favorite surface - clay. He played on his best and favorite surface all year 'round, something that one cannot do today. Look at the Monte Carlo draw. You'll find that Borg beat Vilas on the way to the Monte Carlo final. Barrazzutti was a strong player. Better than Kodes, Fillol or Fibak. Would you feel differently about Monte Carlo if Borg faced Barrazzutti in the semi and Vilas in the final? What's the difference? The reasoning is simple. Borg was better on clay than Vilas. You're taking way too much offense to this. I have presented a clear and concise argument. I actually think that this is relatively close. Anyone who thinks that this isn't is being a little bit too emotional.