Originally Posted by BobbyOne
Mysterious Dan, Your many words cannot avert my impression that you missed the point.
I give you an example for the importance of finals reached: In 1974 Rosewall did not win any tournaments. Nevertheless he was ranked as high as No.2 in the world by a true expert (Lance Tingay). Why? Because he reached the finals in the two most important tournaments, i.e Wimbledon and US Open. If you don't consider Rosewall's finals you should not rank him at all which would be a big mistake.
In 1975 Muscles won five tournaments but he was not ranked as high as in 1974. Thus we can see that big finals can be more important than victories (of lesser tournaments).
It seems to me that Rosewall had a better year in 1975, and when you say "not ranked as high" what do you mean? By Tingay? Or by the ATP?
Most points systems would give the higher ranking to 1975.
Certainly, the slam events have a greater value than a minor, but even the minors have varied weight, depending on their tradition or if they are a national title.
The Canadian is the third oldest tennis tournament in the world, and the Italian has a long and distinguished tradition.
I would agree with a weighted points system, which is what I believe is used now.