A competitor can hold the top ranking without winning a major title, and a major champion can sit well down the table. The two measures are not in conflict; they measure different things.
What a ranking measures
A ranking sums results across a defined period, so it rewards reaching late rounds consistently at many events over a long stretch.
Consistency is weighted heavily by design, because a system that only recognised titles would leave most of the field indistinguishable.
The result is a table describing sustained standing rather than peak performance, which is what entry and seeding decisions actually require.
What a title measures
A championship rewards a single sequence of matches in a single week, without reference to what came before or after it.
The sample is small enough that draw, conditions and opponent withdrawals all influence the outcome substantially. A favourable section of the bracket can be worth more than a marginal difference in ability.
That does not make a title less meaningful, since the format is known in advance and every competitor faces the same structure.
Why the two diverge
A competitor who reaches many semi-finals without winning accumulates a large points total while collecting no trophies.
Another who loses early repeatedly but wins two majors may hold fewer total points despite the more celebrated season. The trophies are remembered and the accumulated quarter-finals are not.
Both descriptions are accurate. The disagreement is about which question matters, and the answer depends on what the number is being used for.
How points weighting shapes the gap
Ranking systems allocate far more points to the biggest events, which narrows the divergence but does not remove it.
Increasing that weighting further would make the ranking more title-driven and less stable, causing large movements from single results.
Governing bodies balance the two, since the ranking must also function as an administrative instrument for entry and seeding across the whole tour. An unstable table would make scheduling and entry planning impossible for competitors and organisers alike.
Why both are retained
Year-end championships often use a separate season-only points race, which is a third measure again and produces a third possible answer.
Retaining several measures is not indecision. Each serves a distinct purpose, and collapsing them into one would lose information the sport uses.
Disputes about who was best in a given season persist precisely because the sport publishes more than one defensible answer to the question.
