This

I've run into thousands of players who think they are good (even the best), and they're not even beating the crappy players, lol.

Soft skills def more important, teaching is a skill.
Also some guys have unorthodox styles and instincts that aren’t very transferable

I do want to qualify this by also saying that game selection is by far the biggest skill in poker. Nothing else is even close.

A person can be the 9th worst poker player on the world, but if he can get into games that consist of the 8 worst players and those 8 players are even moderately wealthy, then that 9th worst player in the world is more profitable that most poker players.

Yea that’s why people who win at live poker by bumhunting all day long don’t make good coaches. They only good at fleecing droolers, I literally see players who table change 8 times in an 8 hour session not to mention all the seat changes to get position on the fish. If that’s the shyt you gonna teach in coaching then FOH it’s not sustainable if everyone did that. Im a rec and whenever those pros start moving to my table and getting position I snap leave. Thank god for home games, they don’t tolerate those shenanigans

Dumbo I wouldn't let some idiot bring you down - everyone in life has an opinion and most are garbage. The more successful you are in life the more haters you have, so you're doing something good here.

I can only compare over my two experiences. I am a fairly decent teacher when it comes to something I consider easy and basic. I know how to simplify things and understand the fundamentals so I can teach them. However when it comes to advanced concepts, I am a terrible teacher.

It is because I just subconsciously know stuff. Bringing it back to poker, I can consciously say that an opposing player has a certain range and that our holding does not beat that range, but I KNOW it does in this instance. It is the same in other fields I am familiar with. Programming, project management, stock investing, etc. I don't know how to break things down to teachable nuggets because I cannot consciously say why they are right.

The other example is my wife. Foe a while she worked in IT training and then she was a high school teacher. She had an innate ability to break things down so her students would understand them. She might not have even completely understood them herself. You could give her a new piece of software she never saw before and a basic training manual and she could teach anyone the basics of the software.

She was just a good teacher. Subject matter was secondary.

Where I am going with all of this is that when it comes to teaching, it isn't just about the teachers skill in the subject matter, the relative difference between the teacher's skill and the students skill matters as well. Also teaching newbies is absolutely a skill.

There are probably tens of thousands of players who can barely beat $2/$5 that would be better teachers for brand new poker players than Phil Ivey would be. Phil is obviously a better player no fricken doubt, but he would be unable to connect with the newer players. Also, teaching is a skill.

Lots of variables here to be making definitive statements. Especially considering the skill of the pupil matters as much as the teacher (which is something I have not seen mentioned here yet).