Ratings mean nothing unless you're trying to sign up for a tournament with a ratings protected sign in. Otherwise, all of this talk is very 950 rated.
Do these ratings make sense; are they fair or accurate? And which rating should be considered more impressive?
These are all NT tournament scores, so the field was packed with 1000 rated pros:
Barry Schultz shoots a 1100 round of 49 at Maple Hill back in 2009; one of the hardest courses in the world. -13 under par.
Micheal Johannsen shoots a 1113 round of 41 at Bradford in 2012; BUT... it's one of his home courses. -17 under par.
Paul McBeth shoots 1132 round of 39 at Fountain Hills in 2013; the next hottest round of the day was 41, McBeth's record on the course was 41 from the year before. -17 under par.
My point is that ratings don't reflect certain aspects of a round and therefore it's not an adequate measure of your talent. Ratings are a like a judgement call made my the French Judge at the Olympics. Don't let the ratings get you down OR fill you up. They do nothing more than give you something to talk about.
Do they still have the 1000rated website or is that defunct?