Call it what you want but at the very least Couriers 2 Australian Opens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vilas 2 Australian Opens. The Australian was a full fledged slam which everyone in the world was playing by the 90s (ok Agassi only missed those but he was never beating Courier as Courier owned him back then) compared to about 3 of the top 30 like was the case in the late 70s. Compare not only the draws, since easy draws can happen, but the field who even showed up for the 2 Australian Opens of Vilas vs Courier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Australian_Open_(December)_–_Men's_Singles Roscoe Tanner the #2 seed, a 45 year old or something Rosewall a top 4 seed, and Phil Dent as the #5 seed, looks like a decent 500 tournament at best, and that is generous. A Masters today would never have a field close to this week.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Australian_Open_–_Men's_Singles Clerc as #2 seed, a nearly retired Ashe as 3rd seed, and Tim Gullikson as 4th seed. This isnt even a 500 tournament field today, maybe a 250 event.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Australian_Open_–_Men's_Singles Courier 91 Edberg, Becker, Lendl, Sampras, Ivanisevic as top 5 seeds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Australian_Open_–_Men's_Singles Courier 92. Edberg, Courier, Stich, Becker, Lendl, Sampras as top 6 seeds.
Yeah no comparision at all. And we also all know by the Wimbledon record of Vilas which is pathetic, far worse than even the rather weak Wimbledon record of Jim Courier, that Vilas would never be capable of winning a real slam on grass.
Couriers 2 clay slams also easily beat the 2 of Vilas. The 92 French is arguably the most impressive in the Open Era other than probably Nadal in 2008 considering how he just ripped through an outstanding clay draw- Muster, Medvedeva, Mancilla, Agassi, just to make the final and destroyed everyone. The 93 French was defending a slam title which is always impressive. Vilas had one good win in his 2 clay slam wins, Connors on green clay in his home U.S in the 77 U.S Open final that is it, he beat Brian Gottfried in his French Open final triumph.
So it is covered Courier is above Vilas by a ton when it comes to their slam wins.
Lets look at other things. It doesnt matter if some think Vilas deserved #1 in 77, Courier was undisputably #1 of 92 and #1 on the computer, a sure and factual #1 >>> a possible case for #1 (not ranked there which was Connors, and not picked by all experts as the deserving many which picked Borg). Also though Courier has 58 weeks ranked #1. That is a lot, and Vilas would not have gotten to that high a number even if he had gotten the #1 ranking to end 77. #1 stats all favor Courier heavily too.
Vilas has nothing on Courier except 1 WTC, that is just one thing. And large number of tiny 250 titles which nobody cares about. Courier has way more prolific slam wins, a lot more time at #1 (technically nothing for Vilas, but even if he got what you want to argue he deserved it would probably be 20 weeks or so max), was a much more dominant player at his best. And again just compare them by surfaces. On clay they are close, many rank Courier higher even on clay. On grass Courier is probably ahead due to his Wimbledon final. Indoors they might be close since Vilas did win a few good indoor events including the WTC. On hard courts though Courier is WAY ahead. Pretty easy to see who wins overall, Courier is better by a ton on hard courts and Vilas isnt much (or any) better on any surface.
As for comparing Murray to Vilas, Murray easily has a more impressive career overall despite technicaly having 1 less slam. I think most would take his 3 slams his having 2 Wimbledon titles at the most prestigious slam and a U.S Open over Vilas and his 4 with 2 rogue Australian Open wins in the same time frame Chris O Neill, Barbara Jordan, and Johan Kreik were winning titles there anyway. Slam wins is the only place they are close though. Murray absolutely blows Vilas away in slam finals, time at #1 (he is an official YE#1 and has 41 weeks at #1, which easily beats some Vilas fans saying he should have ended 77 at #1 and gotten a bit 15 weeks or something ranked there which officialy is 0 in fact), Masters titles, he also has a YEC but 2 Olympic Golds with it, consistency, longevity, everything. Then comparing them by surface Vilas is much better on clay but Murray is better by a ton on every other surface- grass, any kind of hard court, indoors, I dare any Vilas fan to dispute that. So again easy to see who comes out ahead overall.
I find arguing Vilas as better than Courier or even Murray as so stupid it is downright offensive. Arguing a case for him against Wawrinka, Smith, or maybe Hewitt (although I strongly feel Hewitt is better, but atleast I can see that 4 slams vs 2 slams is an argument) I can see, but not Courier, Murray, or Ashe.
