There doesn't seem to be much logic in either case, though the points for WTA qualifying (or certainly for slam qualifying) were even more ludicrously skewed in the past than they are now.

The only thing I can think of in the WTA case is that the high points for winning QR1 are an incentive to get more players to turn up, i.e. those who can see themselves winning one round in qualifying but not all three.

Contrast with ATP qualifying (and Challenger qualifying even more so), which goes too far the other way in my opinion - no points at all unless you reach the FQR in an ATP event or qualify in a Challenger.

Hate to be pedantic but your number sequence is Triangular Numbers and not the Fibonacci sequence.

Fibonacci was 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21 where each number is the sum of the two previous numbers.

OK I'll shut up and go to bed now. 

Theses illogical increases are nowhere near as daft as giving points to R1 / QR1 losers which both WTA and ATP do for big tournaments.

Overall, I think the WTA distribution is better than the ATP which is too top-heavy. However, neither are as good as the systems used in Chess / Cricket where the points for a win are based on the rankings difference between you and your opponent, not the round number or event type.

Oh, while I see the argument for giving benefit for the rankings of who you have beaten and the results of this would interest me to some extent as a bit of a statistics nerd ( similar to the stats Arkenaten used to produce on this forum ), I would absolutely hate such an official system in pro tennis. It is overellaborate, chasing some perceived more "fairness", and unnecessary. Perhaps OK in say age group or regional, if they're happy with it, but NOT the pro tour.

Tennis IS about winning matches, winning rounds, winning tournaments ( I personally rather like that the WTA moved a couple of years more in line with the ATP for giving more relative reward for big runs, now just give up these "turning up" points ) and that is what should should be rewarded plus much better to have a clear understandable system to participants and followers.

The ranking system reflects that tennis when it comes diwn to is IS about winning, not really who you win against. It would all be very strange with differing awards for who were playing, and unnecessarily not simply reflecting that basic purpose.

Certainly at the top level, I doubt too it would have much effect, things would balance out. Maybe at lower level with some players currently seen to choose "easier" tournaments, but that doesn't to my mind make such a change desirable or worthwhile.

-- Edited by indiana on Sunday 18th of October 2015 11:29:05 AM