Originally Posted by TMF
But if Lendl doesn't win the AO, the winner would received 452 points too, not 2000 points.
If Federer didn't win a slam, another player would earned 2000 points, not 452.
The system is based on 12-month stretch, and whoever was more accomplished, he/she is the #1, simple as that.
No, it isn't as simple as that. In today's ranking system, the four majors are given 2000 points, then you have the Masters 1000s, then the 500s, then the 250s.
Back in 1990, Lendl received 452 points for winning the AO, but Edberg received 536 for Wimbledon in the same year, 379 for winning Masters Cincy, and 411 for winning Masters Paris.
So, the point totals are not uniform and therefore ranking results and major winners from the past cannot be used to compare against similar achievements today. The numbers have no correlation with how many majors someone has or hasn't won.