Titled players with low correspondence ratings?

Chess.com recently started displaying a list of titled players with the highest ratings in each type of chess. Under correspondence, there are IMs and FMs with ratings in the 1600s and 1700s. What gives? Those guys are way better players than that.

NB. There's a bug in play right now, and that section is actually showing Live-Standard ratings, not Online/Correspondence.

It doesn't make your question less interesting. I'm just saying. :)

Wow I take chess.com's pages for granted so much that I never even considered it could be a bug.

And yes Shadowknight911, I've found the same thing to be true, in correspondence at least. I feel like analysis board availability makes blitz and bullet ratings more accurate of a player's true strength.