I'm not the original commenter but here's my thoughts.

For reference, I studied theoretical physics up to a bachelor level in university. Despite the "theory" focus I still had to do the same amount of lab work as everyone else. I did not enjoy it. I didn't learn much about the concepts from it.

I did however learn about the importance of visualising and representing data, statistics and so on.

We all learn differently I guess - for me lab work was a chore and that mental barrier probably didn't help me learn what the experiments were designed to teach.

Absolutely. How can you claim to model something if you haven't at least looked at the thing with your own eyes, played with it with your (metaphoric) hands?

Experiments teach you, that reality is complicated and models have to be simple, but with judicious choices of assumptions, one can still get accurate and precise prediction out of simple models. I am a theoretical physicist, but I would say the experimental courses I have taken were the most important courses in understanding the limitation of theory.

I disagree. Perhaps in some areas, like electromagnetism or optics, but there are large fields in physics where it's not necessary (statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics, gravity, high-energy physics)

I am not saying that you should to do experiments in every area. Just that experiments in a few areas (usually mechanics/EM/optics/basic QM targeted by undergrad labs) is sufficient to give you the necessary intuition about the limitations of theory in all areas.

Short answer: not every physicist works in a lab. Theoretical & mathematical physics are entirely about working with mathematical models of phenomena that other people observed in a lab. It's enough to understand that any theory is rooted in the experimental, and should be falsifiable by it.