o.k. just making sure.
It must have been very time consuming. Did you use a specific method, e.g. assigning points for GS matches etc.?
That's how I started -- 4 for a win, 3 for a final, etc.. But then I moved players around where things didn't quite fit. 1 GS title counts arguably more than 2 SFs, for example (a pure points ranking would have semifinal-king Jimmy Connors at #1). Or the poorly attended Aussie Open in the 1970s and early 80s should have less weight than other GS tournaments (malus for Kriek, Denton, etc.). Or if someone does well (almost) only at the French (e.g., Kuerten, Bruguera), this is a malus. Further, one needs to make extra allowances for Laver or Rosewall, who had great careers also before the open era. And so on.
Hence, of course there is subjectivity in there. You may say I tried to be as objective as possible, as long as this didn't conflict too badly with my subjective assessment.