Courier's game and mentality was far more potent than Murray, more slams, and more weeks at #1. Murray only has greater longevity because of modern medicine.
Courier was 23 when he started declining though. One of these days you need to stop modern medicine as argument to pump up some of the players using "what if" arguments.
Just accept some are not meant to have long careers.
Kind of agree about the point of Courier being a better player than Murray though.
As a general rule I tend to value Slam finals a lot when talking about players that win 2-4 Slams. Since actually going all the way is rare for them, being in the final is the next best thing.
So 3 wins in 11 finals is comparable with 4 wins in 7 finals for me. And Murray has the much better record in Masters 1000, which do tend to be important for a player of their caliber.
However, I do rate Courier's runs higher levelwise and he does have good numbers in terms of time at #1. So that should put him ahead.
Short peak for Jim, but very sweet.