Whats with all of the low rated coaches on Chess.com???

I disagree that rating is the sole determinant as to whether one can be a competent coach. I also disagree that it is not possible to be an effective coach for someone having a higher rating. Indeed, in many sports (e.g., tennis), coaches of the very top players cannot beat their students. However, this does not mean they cannot help their students improve. Often, the best coaches were not the best players at the sport or game that they coach. Being able to evaluate a student's weaknesses, understanding how to develop training regimens personalized for particular students and communicating/explaining concepts well are attributes of a good coach/teacher. Top players do not necessarily have these traits.

Hey I'm 600 over his USCF! What's this about? One game for $5?

this guy was adverstising on one of the groups i am in, this almost as bad as sebleb. he isn't a total lier (he says he is a profecional coach and he has been recomended by the staff) like sebleb (He doesn't say he has a 1650 rating when it is 800 and he doesn't say he beat GM short) but he is only rated 560! 200 points under sebleb!

It is not just rating; nor is it just rating difference.

Why someone would hire anyone below NM/FM level, I do not understand?

To master chess, you need to master many concepts. That requires years of education and experience. That's where rating becomes important, since it demonstrates profieciency at translating chess concepts into actual practice.

Being technically proficient does not by itself make someone an effective coach/instructor. You also need to be able to explain important chess concepts in an intuitive way. Lots of masters and GMs are not effective teachers.

Effective coaches also care about teaching. Not just to make a living, but because they want to teach. IOW, they have to care about the students. There are many masters and GMs who are so wrapped up in themselves and their own ambitions, that they cannot empathize with students.

Good coaches also have to be objective about their teaching ability. They cannot get defensive when their explanations confuse a student. Instead, they have to be able to think of a different way of trying to explain the lesson.

Club level players and even experts do not generally have enough demonstrated mastery of critical chess knowledge and skills, IMO. An expert may be widely read in chess. That's chess knowledge and it does not automatically translate into chess strength. It is one thing to "know" positional concepts, for example. It's quite another to be able to integrate them into one's play. And yet something else entirely to be able to teach those concepts to others.

When weaker players coach, two things happen, IMO. One, their ego is ahead of their ability, which is never a good thing. The other is that they are more likely to pass along misunderstandings and bad habits.

If they had effective chess habits and really understood the most important chess concepts, why would they still be a class A/B player or expert instead of a master or GM?

The other advantage that most masters and GMS have is that they were also successfully coached for years by masters and GMs. Effective coaches and teachers are not born. They are nurtured.

As one of my coaches said repeated, to become a master or GM, you need others to help raise you up to that level.

If your ultimate goal is to be a C/D player, then be coached by an A/B player. It's hard to "unlearn" bad habits.

I agree.

I don't lie about it, i don't advertise, i don't charge, i don't accept people rated 1400+, What's bad about that?

Some kids sell lemonade on their front lawn. Same thing. No need to get excited, the health department is not excited, the big lemonade makers are not excited.