Comments on Poker Superstars about Sklansky

I apologize if this has already been addressed. If it has, then please just consider this a rant and kindly provide a link to previous discussions.
I don't watch a lot of poker on television, however, I did catch Poker Superstars the other day. When it came down to Sklansky and Chan, Konig was talking as if David has something to prove to the poker world because he's just a theorist. I may not be quoting verbatim, but that was the jist of what he was saying.
Does Michale Konig believe the [censored] that was spewing out of his mouth? Does David really have to prove that he belongs? I think not. He's produced a large volume of literature based on experience. He's made a lot of money playing the game. Obviously, anyone who knows anything about poker, knows he doesn't have to prove anything, but it frustrates me that someone new to the game, who doesn't know any better, would be led to believe that the man isn't all that he's cracked up to be. Then why the hell was he invited to play on Poker Superstars?

Two things:

1. Konick was speaking to the poker audience at-large, not those of us in the know. I thought his comments were fine.

2. Guys like Sklansky, Hoff, Esfanfiari, et al were included because most of the big names did not want to play in the tournament with that structure, that buy-in and that prize pool. They have since seen the light (PS is #1 on FSN) and will be playing in PSIII.

Right, you and I know how great Sklansky plays, however, because he's an unknown, that doesn't mean he has something to prove. Just because newcomers may not know who he is, that doesn't change the fact that he has already proven his worth.
My last question was rhetorical. Would he have been invited to play if he was not already a "poker superstar"? I mean, I actually question Moneymaker being there.

I just noticed that I mispelled Michael in my original post. I apparently did not have enough Mountain Dew in me when I wrote it. Oh well, I don't have much respect for him anyhow.
I was wondering, has Sklansky discussed his experiences in this tournament? Is there an article or thread and, if so, could someone kindly post a link to it?

[benkahuna]

As far as high level non-limit tournament poker, Sklansky does have something to prove.

He has bracelets, but only in limit events.

A win in WPT Poker by the Book was not enough.

He's the top theorist and supposedly he does very well in mid-high limit games (apparently enough to always make a decent living), but he IS unproven at the highest levels of tournament competition in no limit and at the highest stakes cash games.

He might do well if it were his focus, but it hasn't been and the results are consistent with that.