Contradictory, you are indirectly claiming Federer has vultured more points than No2e this year which I strongly disagreed and rebutted. Tournament being mandatory or not is irrelevant considering the top players can skip tournaments as they please. ¨
BTW, I consider complaining about vulturing being extremely clownish but if you want to go there we drop Rotterdam for Fed and Toronto for No2e and Federer is 500 points closer in the race.
Hmm no, I'm not claiming he vultured those points. Would only have been the case if they had come from tournaments with weak fields, which wasn't the case. What I am claiming, and it is not particularly debatable, is that Federer entered and got a lot more points from 250/500 tournaments than Novak. In Slams, Masters and Olympics, Djokovic has collected 9730 points this year, Federer 7655. Djokovic has clearly been the best player in the world in the biggest events, only his reluctance to enter 250/500 events is making the race close; he only entered one so far this year and collected 180 points from it while his closest competitor Federer got 1240. Claiming that Djokovic is the very opposite of a vulture doesn't imply that Federer or any other player is; Federer's 500/250 has been normal, along the lines of what you expect from a top player, it's Djokovic's that has been exceptionally short.
Ah why do you insist with Toronto? Masters 1000 events cannot be vultured, especially considering the ranking system in place where you get a 0 pointer if you don't play one of the 4 Slams and 8 mandatory Masters. If the other top players were tired/lost early, more credit for Novak who played the exacty same schedule as them, took a bigger mental hit than them (doesn't get any worse than 4th place at Olympics) and yet managed to play great tennis that week.