Shawn Micheals Absent from the 2010 PWI 500 Rankings
The PWI 500 came out, and like the rest of you I analyzed the list with my scrutinizing eyes.
I was very joyous with the fact that AJ styles was No. 1 out of the entire PWI 500. I was appalled that the Great Kahli was aboved KENTA, Jay Lethal, and Paul Burchill in rankings. Obviously, I'm not the only one who has some grief and praise toward the PWI 500!
The biggest blunder the PWI made is omitting Shawn Michaels from the ranking. I scanned the list five times to make sure I didn't somehow miss seeing Shawn Michaels's name on the list.
It seems illogical to omit a wrestler of Shawn Michaels's stature.
As we all know, Shawn Michaels retired back at Wrestlemaina 26. Pro wrestling fans have speculated that Shawn Michaels retirement is the reason why he is omitted from the rankings.
Now, that is a sound theory except for the fact that Batista, who retired from the WWE back in May, is in the top 10 of the PWI 500. With that in mind, we can easily eliminate the theory of Shawn Michaels not being in the PWI 500 because he was retired.
Now, pro wrestling fans could pass it off as him being omitted because he did not perform enough to where he could be considered being ranked in the PWI 500.
That theory is easily debunked due to a few very crucial facts.
Triple H took a hiatus right after the Extreme Rules. That means Triple H had wrestled only one month more then Shawn Michaels. So, it would be logical to think that Triple H would also be omitted or be placed very low on the rankings.
Triple H was ranked No. 11 on the PWI 500. That is a very high place for someone who has been on a hiatus for four or five months, which is equivalent to how long Shawn Michaels been retired for.
Another crucial fact is that this year's ranking was determined between June of 2009 to June of 2010. The criteria, I assume, for determining how high or low a wrestler is placed on the PWI 500 is by Kayfab accomplishments such as title wins, overall win-loss record, placement on card, and various other requirements.
Let's recap the year Shawn Michaels had:
Shawn Michaels returned to WWE programming on August 10, 2009, where he re-formed DX with Triple H. The duo defeated The Legacy at that year's upcoming Summerslam and two months later the duo won the Unified Tag Team title from Chris Jericho and The Big Show.
DX would lose the belts to The Miz and The Big Show and would subsequently split up due to Shawn Michaels obsession of ending The Undertaker's streak. Shawn Michaels would cost The Undertaker his title at the Elimination Chamber PPV, which would lead to a Career vs. Streak match.
As we all know, Shawn Michaels lost that match, thus ending his storied career.
This was a good year for Shawn Michaels, which ended with him delivering the last five-star match of his career. All that Shawn Michaels did between August and Wrestlemania is worthy of a top-10 spot.
So, after analyzing all the facts and possible theories associating the omission of Shawn Michaels, I have come to the conclusion that without a shadow of a doubt Shawn Michaels should be in the PWI 500.
PWI 500 is really not taken seriously by the pro wrestling community as it feels like the top 20 pro wrestlers are reasonable placed while the other 480 wrestlers' names are randomly taken out of a hat and placed on the PWI 500.
Even the criteria is shrouded with mystery as no one knows how wrestlers are really placed in the 500 spots available. Do they consider in-ring skills more than entertainment value, or vice versa?
There are some questionable and illogical placements on the PWI 500.
The Great Kahli ranking higher then KENTA irks the hell out of me. The omission of few others is also baffling. The fact of the matter is that the PWI 500 should never be taken serous or should it be a subject to lose sleep over.
If a pro wrestler called Shockwave the Robot makes the PWI 500 but a legend like Shawn Michaels doesen't make the cut, then the PWI 500 loses all credibility in my eyes!
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?