Originally Posted by NadalAgassi
Really? His only slam title was the Australian Open which was a non slam back then, so in a way it feels like he is slamless although technically a 1 slam winner. His only slam finals at the other 3 he played McEnroe in one, Borg in the other, and was spanked badly in both. He lost something like 20 matches in a row to both Borg and Connors, even though he had good battles with both. He was a good player and fun to watch, but not up with the big boys at the time.
Still if you think it is him just vote "other".
I think he deserves to be in the discussion, though I myself wouldn't necessarily put him at the top among players in this category. Gerulaitis was kind of like the Murray of that day, losing to the two best players (who also happen to be all-time greats). Although it is true the Australian wasn't quite a full-fledged slam back then, if we do admit it as a slam win, then I think Gerulaitis is near the top of the players you list above in terms of pure skill.
Right now, gun to my head I would pick Murray, since he has (as far as I'm aware) the best Grand Slam record among all 1-slam winners, and has the potential to win more. At a close second I would take Chang, his run to the '89 French Open title (slaying two giants of the game Lendl and Edberg along the way) all at the age of 17 definitely deserves major kudos, and he remained a legitimate top competitor for much of the 90's.