Any explanation about Korda's rank?
Korda on list but not ranked because he was most probably on druds during his inexplicable rise back to the top in the end 1997/ beginning of 1998.
I think you could safely expand this to the mid-80s. Would be interesting what comes out, i.e., how Lendl, Edberg, Becker match up vis-a-vis the guys you have.
Btw, I think at the end of a day a player's status in history is determined by the slams and little else. Thus a column with "slams only" could make sense (maybe the result aren't that different). You may also wish to reconsider your weigting system, you have SF=3QFs (OK), F=5SFs (a bit stiff), W=3.3Fs. An equal weight of, say, 3 is simpler and as such may be more compelling.
1) Top-10 wins data are not always available for tournaments held in mid-1980s. Besides, there were no Masters Series back then so Becker and Co would be at clear disadvantage (in terms of ranking points) against players of 90/2000s.
2) I thought about ranking players based only on GS and Masters Cups results first and using other results only as a tiebreaker. But, given how much weight slams (and particularly slam titles) have in my rankings, it would benefit immensely one slam wonders and punish those who were not "lucky" to win a slam but performed consistently and won a lot at regular tour events.
3) At first I thought about not awarding points for slam SFs and QFs at all. As for equal weight round by round, there are way too may cheap SF/QF runs at slams (without facing top-20 or even top-50 players) to make a slam SF worth as many points as Masters Series title, imo (and that would be the case if I went 1000-300-100 for GS W/F/SF).
Beating a top 10 player in the first round of the Australian open is worth the same as winning the olympics?
This counts masters, olympics way too little.
How would this look if you used the ATP current point system?
Olympics draws before 2008 were of MM caliber (or they used to fall apart completely after R3 already), just check who champions had to defeat to win medals. As for points for GS Top-10 win being equal to points for a MM title, I think it's fair. We are talking about best players here, it's not like they were defeating top-tenners in opening rounds and losing to nobodies in the very next match.
Answering the question in bold: Chang and Roddick would overtake Kuerten easily and Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic and others would overtake Safin. Agassi would have even greater lead over Nadal.
Well I think this counts Masters too much. For example, I don't think many people would have Chang above two-time slam champions Safin and Rafter in their all-time rankings. In this table Chang gets all the mileage putting him past these guys out of results at lower-ranked tournaments.
In the wider realm of things Masters (and other) tournaments are warm-ups to slams, no more.
In my rankings Masters title is worth only one tenth of a Grand Slam title (it's 50% in ATP rankings). Chang gained his lead over Safin thanks mostly to shitload of MM titles. And I see no problem at all with Chang being ranked above Rafter.
Roddick in Top 10.
Roddick has been an uber-consistent performer both at slams (bar RG) and other tournaments. His consistency can't be ignored.