I don't buy the way the points used for this calculation is so close in relationship to points on offer in the rankings.
For example, a runner up at a major is a much more significant achievement in the greater scheme of tennis than winning a Masters 1000 tournament - twice a great at least imo... not 1.2 times.
It should be more like: Slam win 5, year ending championship 2.5, slam runner-up 2, Masters 1000 title 1... A relative scaling more like this would be more consistent with how tennis players are viewed historically and in the respect/admiration they get for past achievements.
For example, Rios vs Ivanisevic. No one at all cares that Rios was a number one player compared to Ivanisevic who won a major. Rios won 5 Masters series tournaments to Ivanisevic's 2... but the ranking above would rate Rios higher (I only did it quickly - could be wrong). That is folly imo - at the peak of the game Ivanisevic succeeded, Rios did not - and so will be remembered in higher regard than Rios ever will be.
Original Pro Staff 85, leaded to 370g, hybrid poly/syn gut set-up, 48-52-ish lbs.