Each decade seems to have it's own pecking order as far as the tournaments. In the 60's, I'm giving Wimbledon winners 35 pts, USO and FO winners 30 points, AO winners 24 or 18 pts depending on the strength of the fields. Other tournaments are worth 1, 2, 4, 8 or 12 pts. These depend on the field quality and how many results are posted for the year. For example, we have great results in finals from '64 so the Ital Open and the SA Open get 12 pts. However, in the early 60's the database is sketchy, so most tournament winners get 1, 2, or 4 pts. When that happens, the Slams dominate the rankings picture. I give half points to runners up in all tournaments. In Slams, Rof16, QF, and SF players all get points. It's pretty consistent. However, if a player makes a Slam Sf and does nothing else, they may be ranked higher in points than they should be. (ie Kormoczy in '61 my #13? Susman in '62 my #2? Sukova in '62 my #7? Palmer in '62 my #13? Catt in '63 my #9? Ebbern in '63 my #7? Moffitt in '63 my #5? Where do these players rank in other rankings during the time?