I get it's your opinion, but I'd like to ask what criteria you used in these ratings, are they just off the top of your head or? Personally, I think if you're going to rate people just do it off tournaments, or atleast have waited until after Godfreids thing was over, Because then atleast you have some sort of statistic to go off of rather then just your opinion right off making it more accurate. I don't think anyone deserves a rating that doesn't compete in tournaments, myself included.
I think people can still be given ratings if they participate in a regiment that regularly does groupfighting/1v1's because you can still get a good idea of their skill level.
The problem with rating people who don't do tournaments is mostly that it's harder to tell if it's a consistent skill level or a fluke, but I don't think that would ever cause someone to be massively over/underrated, maybe 1 or 2 points either way.
From groupfights, and duels/tournaments yeah you can get pretty accurate representations. One point i wanted to point out, at first i thought this was a duel list like vetros, but it's obviously ideally meant for both, but one thing is like what justifies for example, you and russian, like what makes russian a better overall player than you? He doesn't compete in the duel tournaments as far as I'm aware, i feel like alot of the list is just a groupfighting list tbh, and you would think if the list considered duels, peoples ratings would suffer for not doing the ft7s or tournaments. Another player is Jetch, he does no sort of competitive to justify a rank, I get again it's just fartknockers rating opinion, but I assume he wants to be accurate.
Edit: Even myself, I get all these ratings, yet I don't actively ft7 anyone, and i don't really do the dueling/gf tournaments in any sort of consistency, so therefore i don't deserve a ranking. I just feel like lists would be better if we just had some sort of statistic.