Because to me, they are more important and have more credibility. I don't like the RR system and I see WTF (it keeps changing name btw, how annoying is that ) as not much more than a glorified exhibition despite the ATP efforts to promote it. If it was serious about rewarding the best players , it would alternate surfaces. As it is, it's just a fancy stunt on a minority surface (indoor hard) and masters seem much more serious to me. I also cannot take seriously an event where losing a match doesn't send one home. It's reminiscent of the pepsi challenge in the past, not "a real tournament" in my book. But I still put it ahead of Olympics because tennis participation in the Olympics is recent and still a bit awkward. WTF has more historical weight.
Gee, I wonder why? That is a tough one to figure out.
I'm stating my opinion, that's all (I'm not trying to impose it on anyone btw, it's just how I would rank the events). If Nadal was my agenda, it's obvious I would have put Olympic Gold above WTF. My opinion is not motivated by any specific player. It's how I see tennis events and how I feel about them, nothing more, nothing less. It is true that the ATP allots a lot of points for WTF but this thread asks for one's personal way of ranking events. That's what I did. All the slams are worth the same amount of points but some people placed Wimbledon over the other slams. So, it is implied that no one has any obligation to strictly follow the points system for their personal ranking. + if someone won as few as 2 masters in a season, they would have won more points than with WTF, so it makes perfect sense to me to prioritize the masters, even in terms of points.
