Hello.
First of all, excuse the stupidity of this question and take it with a grain of salt, knowing that I'm ~800 elo blitz, ~1000 rapid, and I don't play classical chess.
With that out of the way, I was recently watching Levy Rozman recapping one of the games in the tournament he is currently playing.
The game was pretty advanced already, I don't know what move it was, but it was definitely towards the end of what you may call the "mid-game", and Levy said something along the lines of: "at this point I've been almost blitzing my every move, and my opponent only has 30 mins on the clock, while I have 90".
Of course I know more time is better, and players make longer calculations in classical chess, but still I don't understand why 30 mins would not be enough to play the game comfortably until the end.
I mean, these are players who play with 90% precision in 3 mins blitz (maybe I'm exaggerating, but you get the point), so why is 30 mins not enough to play that game with a high level of precision - I mean, picking the best or second best move at every turn - until the end, given that they were already almost in the end-game?
Again, these are just the thoughts of a very low rated chess player, but it's something I often wonder
Even if say a player makes a move in 2 minutes, the multiple moves made will tally up close to the 30 minutes. With his opponent having 90 minutes on the clock, his opponent can still afford the time to calculate deeper moves which might cause him trouble.
And when a player gets into severely low time, he might panick and play even worse.
Better low on time in a won position than in a lost position with plenty of time left on the clock.
Depends on the position. You usually start with 90 minutes. So if after 15 moves you have only 30 minutes left, that's not ideal. In Blitz you play by hand (=by intuition), in classical chess you can afford to think more about plans, calculate complicated lines etc, which takes time.
Also, if the player doesn't switch to moving faster, she might end up with only 5 minutes, which will be a problem.
That said 30 minutes are enough to finish the game without major mistake. Even 1 minute is enough, as players usually get 30s increment per move.
Also, from your quote, there is no mentioning that anyone was not being comfortable. Levy played very quickly (probably because he understood the position), so he still has 90 minutes. But he didn't say that his opponent felt umcomfortable, did he?
So who won?
It was the first game in the tournament, and Levy won (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-ZFnbaL6d0&t=1014s). The part I was referring to is at 5:30.
Thanks for the replies, everyone 
My respond disapeared
You don't understand why having 1/3rd the time is a disadvantage playing at an extremely high level where calculations can be 3 - 5 moves or more deep?
So who won?
It was the first game in the tournament, and Levy won (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-ZFnbaL6d0&t=1014s). The part I was referring to is at 5:30.
Thanks for the replies, everyone
You cannot say at this point that the game was close to exiting the mid-game. Actually it was just move 17, close to what at that game level is described as "right after the opening".
So, Black had 30 minutes for 23 moves until the time control, which is not really enough time if the position is complex.
Got it! Thanks 
Hello.
First of all, excuse the stupidity of this question and take it with a grain of salt, knowing that I'm ~800 elo blitz, ~1000 rapid, and I don't play classical chess.
With that out of the way, I was recently watching Levy Rozman recapping one of the games in the tournament he is currently playing.
The game was pretty advanced already, I don't know what move it was, but it was definitely towards the end of what you may call the "mid-game", and Levy said something along the lines of: "at this point I've been almost blitzing my every move, and my opponent only has 30 mins on the clock, while I have 90".
Of course I know more time is better, and players make longer calculations in classical chess, but still I don't understand why 30 mins would not be enough to play the game comfortably until the end.
I mean, these are players who play with 90% precision in 3 mins blitz (maybe I'm exaggerating, but you get the point), so why is 30 mins not enough to play that game with a high level of precision - I mean, picking the best or second best move at every turn - until the end, given that they were already almost in the end-game?
Again, these are just the thoughts of a very low rated chess player, but it's something I often wonder