Why is it that Im way better at classic chess then at rapid ?

@doom12384 it has nothing to do how well people play. Avega of each pool roughly equals to starting rating given the new players - thats how the rating math works out. And way more rapid players than classic players. And difference is in particular in them amount of stroger players. So pool of classic players is weaker than rapid players which is weaker than pool of blitz player. So one shoudl usually have classic > rapid > blitz. If that is not the case then player has some specific skill or lack of it for some specific time control

rating are relative i.e only meaningful within on pool. Never meant to be between the pools thingy. Obviously you could make just one pool and give bigger weight to classic games. Like Universal Rating System does

@petri999
The rating system has everything to do with how well players play relative to the other players in the pool. It is true that the average of the each pool should be roughly equal to the starting rating. When I stated that players who use their time well in the longer time formats score better on average, I implied that their play relative to the rest of the pool was better than in faster time controls. I was speculating that misuse of time was a large factor in the wildly varying quality of play in the classical pool. It is speculation, but I do think, based on some of my own classical games, that it might be correct.

The OP has a higher rating in the classic pool compared to rapid. There’s no synchronization- so it could even mean that he is worse in classic chess „objectively“.

To play rapid, u must have a good understanding about opening, midgame and endgame. You require more experience and knowledge about pattern. If u try 1 minutes per moves, it's already too late