My tactics rating a million points higher than blitz/rapid. Why?

“Chess is 99% tactics” - Richard Teichmann  To that I say hogwash! My guess is that 99% of chess is having the better position, and from that, tactical opportunities arise.

“Coming out of the opening with a lousy position usually spells disaster” - Musikamole  

Even with all that was said above, the gap is huge and seems to defy all reason. I’m U1000 in blitz and U1200 in rapid. My tactics trainer rating is over 1500 and I hit a new record in Puzzle Rush Survivor of 35. Puzzle 35 was rated over 1900. Why is the gap so huge? Anyone else experience these huge gaps? 

The ratings in tactics are really inflated cuz it seems like everyone has a higher tactics rating than regular rating

Puzzle ratings aren't related to playing ratings. They mainly reflect persistence.

Look at the Puzzles Leaderboard.

Somebody should do a chart comparing puzzle rating to blitz or bullet ratings of these players.

“Tactics flow from a superior position.” 
Bobby Fischer, My 60 Memorable Games

Chess is not 99 percent tactics.

It's 99 percent blunders.

Forget the quotes. Pick a number, say 500 maybe. Now pretend that you need to take that number off of a puzzle rating to get a blitz rating - as a very approximate average of course.

One rating type does not directly correspond to the same number of a different type. It just doesn't work that way.

Please don't also read into your rapid rating being higher than your blitz. Almost all players around your ratings are the same. That particular discrepancy is actually quite easily explained. Compare noughts and crosses (tic tac toe) to chess, for example. One game is mastered easily and any ELO ratings that could possibly come about from such a game, would have a very narrow spectrum, as people figure out the game. The same thing is true of the difference between rapid and blitz chess, albeit to a FAR lesser degree. It is harder to play the perfect blitz game, than the perfect rapid game. The easier to play game, will have the smaller ELO spectrum. Just like tic tac toe will have a tiny ELO range, a blitz rating pool, should likewise be marginally smaller than a rapid one. The lowest and/or highest rated players in that pool will see more extreme ratings. Also, beginners will typically want to avoid faster game types, as they need more time to think about the game that they don't know so well yet. Less weaker players = a disproportionate rating.

Anywaaaaay, I went very unnecessarily way off topic there. You can't and shouldn't directly compare numbers from different rating pools. Puzzle ratings are very noticeably inflated when compared to other chess.com ratings. Your tactics sound like they're about correct when compared to your other ratings.

The average puzzle rating picked at 'random' for you to do in non-rush settings is on average several hundred points below what your rating is at the time. E.g., if you're 1500, the average puzzle rating may be 1250. That's true for everyone who's not getting every single one right. In such a case, then you can be offered progressively higher puzzles than your rating. This is all aside from what has been said many times before, that in a puzzle, you know there is a solution. In a game, the same scenario may be harder to recognise.

You and I have very similar numbers. I personally think your puzzles rating should always be higher than your ELO. I also like to think I have the potential to spot tactical opportunities in live games more often as my puzzle ratings progress.

For many reason, my ELO rating is low because I should be converting winning positions more often and also, I am a slow player but like to play blitz.  Lastly, we're still learning.

I'm going to drill the simple tactics to where I can solve them in under 5 seconds. If I can see a tactic in under 5 seconds, I have a much better chance of seeing them in my games. 

I can only speculate, but if I were to play a slow tournament game - one hour or more per side - then maybe my ability to calculate those harder tactics would be of some benefit.