Only ranking the 6 best results actually hurts dominance as much as it hurts longevity. It would be fairer to continue to include results past the 6 mark but only if it continues to show a level of dominance and success that should indeed be rewarded and shouldn't go unnoticed, such as reaching the finals of a Slam Event or winning it only, and perhaps half points for any semi-finals but nothing more. This way you penalize longevity without sacrificing too many of the hard earned and excellent quality results that do occur.
At the moment you are even dismissing finals results that go past the 6 best results in the same manner you are dismissing a 3rd round result, which is surely unfair. There would not be many instances in which results would change if you were to make a change like this but I'm guessing their would be some, and in such a case you would be further highlighting their dominance and incredible high level play by only including semis, finals and wins past 6 rather than wins, while still not rewarding longevity so much.
Thanks for the feedback! I'm glad your discussing methodology and not the end result.
Obviously, I have given this matter some thought when I started this thread years ago. Players who have finals or semifinals as a best 7t, or 8th result by definition already score very high points for those tournaments. Counting more than 6 results, only when they are excellent, would only put the likes of Federer, Sampras and Agassi (and in a few years Nadal and maybe Djokovic) further ahead of the rest of the field.
However, I have been thinking that winning a slam 7 times is rewarded disproportionally more than winning 6 and reaching a final once. This was never much of an issue, as only Sampras had won the same tournament more than 6 times, but now it seems we might have a realistic chance of Nadal winning, say Monte Carlo, 8 or 9 times, or Federer winning the TMC more than 6 times. The current system might be over-rewarding. I'll give the matter some thought, though I don't like rearranging the points allocation system too much.
Also, have you thought about extending this list to include the entirety of the Open Era, as before 1990 there was the Grand Prix Championship Series which basically is the Masters Series but with different branding.
Of course I've thought about it. I'd really like to know where Edberg, Becker, Wilander, Lendl and McEnroe would end up if I included their eighties results and how they'd compare to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.
However, I had to draw the line somewhere. The introduction of the Masters Series in 1990 was a good moment as the calender has remained relatively unchanged ever since.
I could, for fun, work out the total points for Becker, Edberg and co, but it'd take some time and ever since I left university, time has become a precious commodity.
Please do consider these things, they could form a new thread that works along similar lines and yield more comprehensive results, and you'd certainly be the person to put it together.
Thanks for the compliments!