Your definition of professional is unusual.
I would say respecting the sport, the officials, the fans and your opponent is part and parcel of being professional. Running off the court with your mommy before the trophy ceremony because you lost or throwing a tantrum when things are not going your way would be two examples of not being professional.
Connors being part of the trifecta of tennis *******s (JMac and Nastase completing it) should be on no list in terms of professionalism. That you have him ahead of Federer, Sampras and Borg, three consummate professionals places your list into the twilight zone.
Of course I agree that he was a great player, normally gave it his all on the court and was certainly dedicated.
But you may disagree with my definition but nonetheless rank players according to it. What I seek is only to know who are the very dedicated players to their career, the "neutral" ones, and the not dedicated ones. I think being a jerk, throwing tantrum, etc. is not professional by your definition, but doesn't really affect how much a player is dedicated to succeeding in tennis.
Now here is my ranking, which I hope people will comment or complete with players from eras I don't know well enough.
Tier 1: Players very dedicated. They sacrificed a lot for their tennis career.
Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Lendl, Borg, Djokovic, Murray, Chang, Ferrer, Davydenko, Laver, Rosewall, Hewitt, Connors, Vilas, Gottfried, Solomon, Martin, Muster.
Tier 2: Players who are not known for being specially dedicated or specially not dedicated: Left out for know. Most players enter this category, and my wish is to discuss further these players in particular.
Tier 3: Players who are know to have been not dedicated enough, who let outside thing "hinder" their tennis career or simply choose to profit from life more: Agassi, Baghdatis, Safin, Nalbandian, Fish, Becker, McEnroe, Nastase, Ivanisevic, Pancho Gonzales, Stich, Philippoussis, Rios.
