My most recent victories that I feel show worthy are vs a 1414 and a 1600. And I've lost to 1208 I think. Too lazy to look it up but my point is rating sometimes grants an undeserved psychological edge. I lost to someone who obviously sandbagged his rating against people who were only 1200 to 1399. He was able to get an edge by making me feel out of my league. It can be hard to kill these psychological advantages, but they are worth whipping, because I know from experience that once you think you are beaten, you stand a worse chance of winning.
Beware! Low stats does not equal lack of ability!

Sandbagging, is where you lose on purpose for deceitful reasons.
Sandbagging is when people don't play for a whikle, but keep studying so they perform higher than their ratings.
The funny thing is I can regularly beat people who are rated 1400-1500, but almost all of my losses are from people 50 points behind me.

Sorry I believe I misused sandbagging. I suspect the guy inflated his rating by using weaker players as fodder.

Rating has nothing to do with chess skills. Rating has something to do with results.
if your chess skills are good so is your rating, if bad so is your rating...black and white...rating is based on your results V, and your results is based on your chess skill.
some higher skilled players could also have a very low rating if they timed out on a large number of games. This relates to correspondence chess for the most part. Always play the board and never the rating. I have played on some other sites as a new player ( low rating) and find it funny when high rated players try to play me like a chump. Bringing the queen out early. Only developing a couple pieces. Then they get crushed for the mistakes.