Yes your ranking is likely to produce higher points for a slam than other events because all the other best players are entered and you play seven rounds. Its also likely to produce runs closer
3,6,12,25,50 ,100 rather than
7,15,25,45,70 100
because of your emphasis on the qual;ity of player you beat.
Howver, palm springs which has the same field as a slam has every chance of scoring as many points as a slam . looking at the results I suggerst that nadal would probably score more points at palms springs than the aussie open even though he reached the semi at both and everybody would regard his aussie performance as far more signiicant. Also look at fish's result in palm srings where I suspect he'll score more points under your system than the winner Djokovic and would come pretty close to Djokovic's score at the Aussie open because of the quality of fish's wins. Such results are ridiculous in the world of tennis. The slams/majors are far more important than other events which have all the best fields.
In 1969 and 1970 Laver won philadelphia against all the world's best players,but nobody regarded it as anywhere near as important as Laver's and Newcombe's wins at Wimbledon in each year. Many journalists (tingay, mcCauley, collins) gave Newcombe the world no1 in 1970 because he won Wimbledon , but very little else (he only won 3 other small events; In contrast to Laver who won fourteen often against strong fields; Laver beat Rosewall 5-0, Newcombe 3-0 and beat every other member of the top 12 at least twice; in comparison newcombe was 1-5 against Rosewall)
Sharapova probably does well because of wins at WTA canampoionship, where under your system I suspect her runner-up is worth more than Kuznetsova's runner-up at the us open
Rosewall And Lendl are the 2 great modern number ones (nobody regards courier, Muster or Moya as all time greats) not to
have won Wimbledon.
In 1975 Dallas was a major. more important than The Aussie open. Ashe had to win Dallas as well as Wimbledon to secure the number one ranking according To Ashe himself and Tingay.
the 0.5 probability ratio would not see such a large ratio progression if all the players you beat were of the same level : eg ranked between 90 to 99. Its the supposed rising quality of the opponents which raises the points more quickly (ie the 3,6.12,,25,50,100).
How long a time span do these ratings cover 1 year or 2 or 3 ?
Is it players an average rating ie total points divided by number of tournaments played
Could you give the points (up to and including Aussie 2008) for beating Henin (no1), the number 10 ,number 50 and the number 100 to see how much the points system is dominated by beating top players
Ther's nothing wrong with empasising the quality of the opponents you beat, but in the world of tennis its not the only thing. Wining matches, particulartly at the the majors is just as important. Fish's runner up at palm springs is not as good as Tsonga's runner-up at he Aussi,e although I suspect under your system it actually is.
jeffrey