is 1400 a good rating?

Did OP edit his text since then, or what is going on?

OP probably edited

@WSAMA I'm 1400 now XD

My initial non-provisional USCF rating was 1425. I thought that I was pretty good at the time. After losing five straight in a weekend Swiss, I fell below 1400. It took me two events to climb back into the realm of the good. Some years later, I rose over 1500 after a particularly good event, even beating an A Class player. That was better. I needed lessons from a master to get to 1600.

Now, however, I often underestimate players in the 1400s because they wouldn't be there if not for serious defects in their game. OTOH, a third grade student who I coach is very good and he's about 1400.

I'm no longer sure I understand the word good.

1400 is good for beginners. If you have played for more than one year, it's pretty bad. 

that naku that doesn't depress me at all

Yes. You literally have spent far too much time studying chess if you get over 1500.

1400 is a good rating if you play speed chess.  I am older but I play 5 minute games to kill time.  Sometimes I play good, sometimes not so good.  Also depends on concentration because some times I am just moving not thinking, and sometimes I am slow.  I have been as low at 1250 and as high as 1500.  I think maintaining a 1400 speed chess rating is very good.

THIS IS ALL WRRRRRROOOOOOONNNNNGGGGG I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT BLLLLLIIIIIITTTTTZZZZZZ i am talking about uscf and it is 1621

My USCF went down nine points over the weekend.

i have a uscf of 1450 and my coach says im underrated 

I guess that cancels each other out?

Yeah, but anyone rated more than 400 points higher than you is likely to have the impression you're underrated.

It's like... the most common thing to feel about a low rated player.

Same thing if you're 2000 and you show a GM one of your better games. They'll be all, who played this? You did? What's your rating again? 

Since they literally can't imagine someone as bad as you (or me) no matter how bad you (or I) play they'll see it as about 400 points below them.

Lol

Plus, you know, probably ever super GM went from 2000 to FM in like... less than a year.

So they see a somewhat reasonable game, and see you have a 2000 rating, and they're thinking, yeah, you could be an FM in a few months.

And then they say the common words... "you just need some more experience"

This is the type of place where trolls thrive.

And I've learned not to classify myself as under/overrated. If you keep saying "this guy's underrated, so is he, oh he is overrated", then WHO is accurately rated?? I just take the approach of, "you are what your rating says you are", move on to the next game, and enjoy things.

@llamonade is right ,these super high rated players had a very easy time climbing the rating ladder. Carlsen went from expert to grandmaster in 3 years. 

You can't be a patzer to international players since you are able to play well...

I am a patzer compared to everyone in this forum topic.

Good point. More often than not, I underestimate several lower rated players and overestimate several higher rated players.

emu outruns his opponent(pun intended)