Paul Heyman has written another blog over at The Heyman Hustle. Amongst other topics, Heyman questions the logic in the finish of the CM Punk/Jeff Hardy match involving The Undertaker.
Heyman writes, ""So, let's examine this, shall we?," Heyman wrote in his latest Heyman Hustle blog. "Punk did not cheat to win. His only beef has been with Jeff Hardy, whose lifestyle Punk finds offensive. While Punk's antics on Smackdown are starting to paint him as preachy hypocrite, he has not picked a fight with anyone other than Hardy. He certainly has done nothing to earn the wrath, or deserve a beating from The Undertaker.
The babyface picked a fight with the heel ... beat him up after a grueling match in which the heel did nothing to cheat or deprive another babyface, who happened to be champion, of an outcome that could be deemed 'honest and justified.' Justice was not served at the end of SummerSlam, and the Big Dog did not need to protect his yard from this newest top tier performer.
So, why was it right for a babyface to chokeslam a heel, when the heel did nothing in the match to elicit a hostile, disdainful response except win the match in which he was competing against a more popular performer? Why was it right for this babyface to chokeslam the heel, who has never crossed that babyface's path? Why is this storyline different from all other storylines?"
Read Paul's answer here...