My Answer to Paul Heymans comment about Summerslam's main event finish

[Doomsday Device]

For those who have not read Paul Heymans questioning the logic of the ending between Jeff and Punks match:

by Nick Paglino
Aug 24, 2009 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?"

My answer is plain and simple: For all of those who have followed Taker's career, we know that usually when Taker returns from a brief (or long) hiatus, he wants to make an impact and immediately go after whomever is holding the World Title/WWE Championship. No matter if it happens to be a face or heel. Thats just Taker's prerogative and style. Same thing happened at the ending of Royal Rumble 2006 when Taker played some mindgames with Kurt Angle basically saying "Im going after you and your belt"

It surprises me that Paul is even saying this. Someone like him who knows how wrestling works, and knows talent like Taker.

Your thoughts.

 

[Thriller Ant]

Heyman is right. Punk may be a heel, but it was very heelish of Taker to attack Punk for no reason. If they had waited until SmackDown and Punk had insulted him or even the SD roster then, it would have been ok. The way they set it up, it really makes it look like Punk is the face and Undertaker the heel.

 

[Checkmate]

First, I'd reference the Royal Rumble 2006, where Undertaker returned and essentially challenged Kurt Angle. This would be a babyface/babyface thing, and it could be stated that Undertaker didn't attack Angle, but Lightning to the ring could be taken as such.

Another point would be when Undertaker chokeslamed Batista to challenge him for the championship after winning the Royal Rumble 2007. Again, this was a babyface/babyface meeting, but Undertaker initiated the hostilities by chokeslaming Batista.

So, while I agree with the logic of Heyman, and that perhaps Punk should have initiated the rivalry and such, I think the WWE wanted to really get a big pop for Taker's return. So, they did so immediately following the main event of a big 4 PPV. I can't say I blame them.

 

[Planty]

While I do think WWE is forgetting what makes people faces and what makes them heel, I say this was an awesome decision.

You know why?

Lets take CM Punk on Jeff Hardy, he brought up the fact that Hardy attacked him when his eye was "injured" months back. He slated Hardy for his antics (which were heel) and the fans hated Punk more because they know he's right but can't stand the man.

So if CM Punk makes reference to this, it will have the same effect. Cause it will only be the smarks who would maybe boo the Undertaker, and even then so many smarks have respect for him and wouldn't do that anyway. So with that in mind, CM Punk will get major heel heat for bringing up this unprovoked attack by The Undertaker (one of the most over men in history and currently a major babyface).

Also, Heyman is right. It HAS always been Undertaker's style. Therefore, like I said, for CM Punk to complain about this considering so many others have felt the same wrath... instant heat.

I'm just hoping CM tries to say that drugs made UT into this freaky individual. Would be pretty cool.

Nice thread. Rep for you DD

 

[Kenny Powers]

You need to go to Heyman's website at heymanhustle to read the rest of the blog. He stated the reason WWE did this was to take attention away from Jeff Hardy leaving, thus setting up a new feud. Obviously, The Undertaker wouldn't of made an appearance if Jeff Hardy was still with the company. I agree that it doesn't make sense for Undertaker to chokeslam Punk, but it takes attention off of Hardy.

It looks like Hardy may have one last run with Punk on Smackdown, then The Undertaker will start a feud with Punk. The Undertaker is too big of a star to be feuding with The Great Khali or Morrison.

 

[Dexter]

Why are we automatically assuming Taker is going to be face right off the bat? I've always liked him better as a heel or tweener anyway, and I'm thinking maybe they're going the tweener route this time.

Probably not making him heel, or they'd have had him attack Hardy instead of punk, but I'll have to agree with Heyman in that having him just attack someone after a hard match like that isn't a particularly babyface thing to do.

So yeah, I'd say they're probably going for the tweener thing... not quite Corporate Ministry nasty, but not face either.

 

[Doomsday Device]

Good posts so far everyone.

Sure, WWE could have waited a couple more days to bring back Taker (of course have to wait til SD) but why do that when you can bring Taker back at the Biggest Party of the Summer. Vince in my opinion was just doing everything he could to make it a great payperview. And having Taker in the PPV was another good reason for fans to purchase the event.

Im looking foward to this Taker/Punk program.

 

[sicmcnasti]

When you think about it, Taker did the same thing Punk did when Punk cashed in MITB to win the WHC. He made an attack after a grueling match. It shouldn't be logical or fair for Undertaker to do it and everyone think it's OK and for Punk to do it and everyone think it's bad, especially after Punk referenced that when he cashed it in on Edge a year ago they loved him for it.
If anything, I took Jeff Hardy to be more of the heel early on in his feud with CM Punk. His brother did the fast count on Smackdown! after Punk accidentally ran into him. Hardy refused to tag when they teamed up against Edge and Jericho by feigning an eye injury and making fun of CM Punk. Not to mention all of his promos that made me want to boo him.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

Why'd he attack Punk? He's the fuckin' Undertaker! His character exists to do nothing but hurt people. He's the WWE's equivalent of the Grim Reaper. You may hate him and not understand his motivations, but at the end of the day, he'll do it because that's what he's there to do. The Reaper takes lives because you need to die. Taker beats you up, because everyone should get a severe whoopin' every now and then.

Plus i can see a Taker promo where he comes out and says something like:

"CM Punk....... It is you who has benefitted most in my absence from the WWE Universe, by claiming the WHC for yourself. It is you who has preached the right way, and the wrong way to live one's existance, believing yourself to be the benchmark of perfection in the WWE, which i find offensive. I don't claim to be the benchmark of perfection. I'm the benchmark of brutality. And while you may be the top of the food chain, you've forgotten one simple thing. Even the most dangerous of predators die eventually. You've caught your pray..... in my yard, which now makes YOU the pray. My Pray. The hunt is on Punk, and you are the hunted, and when the chase is finally over, you can at last, REST..... IN........." and then Punk should blast him from behind or some shit.

It surprises me that Paul is even saying this.

Should have read the rest of it dude.

The first half was written as if Paul wasn't an ex-wrestling promoter, and was just another mark who was confused by SSlam. The second half is written based on his expertise and experience.

Considering what SD's ME is going to be this week (reportedly), this is likely to cause more confusion. Taker replacing Jeff in such a matter as he did on Sunday would suggest that Jeff's gone forever, as in, not on this mortal plain anymore. So if he turns up this week on SD, aren't people going to wonder where the fuck he disappeared too?

Or is he just going to say 'I was lying on the floor staring up at Punk, wondering if i'd ever have a title run that lasted longer than 3 weeks, when suddenly everything went dark and i just woke up in my hotel room.' or they'll stcik to the usual WWE method of not bothering to comment on anything that relates to Taker's gimmick in terms of logic, believability or just plain sense.

I'm happy the Punk/Hardy fued is over, i'm happy Taker's back, and i'm happy that he'll be used prominently (lol, i TOLD a lot of people that guys like Ziggler and Morrison would get pushed aside once the Phenom returned), and I'm glad that Punk is finally going to get to work in a proper programme with a ME guy who isn't Kane or Batista, and while i'm sure it was a mtfo moment seeing Taker return, i don't think it's going to do anything positive in terms of kayfabe, or helping the occassional fan's understanding of what's going on with Jeff.

But, Taker's back in the ME scene. The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh couldn't be happier really.

 

[Барбоса]

I see Taker's attack as the perfect fodder for Punk to continue to gain heat. With this he can complain but also maintain that underlying truth that should always accompany his Straight Edge heel character. I mean how correct has his rants about Jeff Hardy proven... scarily close to the mark. Hardy could have all the fans in the world but eventually he would mess it up and disappoint his followers. Ouch!

As for the Undertaker, he has the ability, perhaps only rivaled by Stone Cold Steve Austin, to do incredibly heelish things such as burying people alive in the ground and in concrete, throwing them off cages and generally being dark but remain a staunch babyface. It should not come as any surprise that he attack the WH Champion upon his return. It should make for some interesting showdowns in the ring and some more golden promos from Punk...

I do have one concern about this though... the next PPV is Breaking Point and if Punk and Taker are to clash there in what would presumably be a submission match, can anyone ever see the Deadman having to tap out to the Anaconda Vice, or anything else for that matter? To keep the title Punk would have to either bludgeon Taker into oblivion or some contrived 'No Contest' will have to be thought up to prevent taking the title from Punk, who in my opinion needs and deserves to hold onto the title until perhaps Survivor Series or even the end of the year.

 

[Pepper Wadman]

I know it's probably already been said but I know I read somewhere that they didn't want the fans going home on a bad note. Which is why they were contemplating having DX vs Legacy be the main event as opposed to Orton vs Cena or Punk vs Hardy.

Instead, they made the world title match the main event, and had something take place that the fans would love. They watched as their hero Jeff Hardy was destroyed by Punk. They hated Punk and then the Undertaker returned and took out Punk. It's what the fans wanted to see. I know the rest of Heyman's blog said what he thought it was about, but it's pretty obvious this is the reason.

BTW, I could be totally wrong but those were my thoughts.

 

[PLeasuRinTheBossSdaughTer]

Simply;;;;;He made the statement_____I'm back;;; now you CM Punk have to deal with me......The Deadman_____. Also known as extremly obvious of what was going to happen.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Why did 'Taker attack Punk? Hmmmm, let's see, because he is the fucking UNDERTAKER! That is how the big dog in the yard does things. He doesn't come out and talk about taking souls, he just does it! He challenged Batista with a chokeslam. Hell, when he first came back as the dead man and he feuded with JBL, he challenged him with a chokeslam to. One could make a case that it is an Undertaker signature to challenge his oppenents in a violent way. I think that Heyman has forgotten this, but how could he, because when Heyman was sent off of SD as the general manager, he was tombstoned.

It is the Undertaker people, and I, being a huge 'Taker fan, would have been disappointed for anything less.

 

[midgensa]

Lol ...clearly the OP and most on here have not read the rest of what Heyman said.
WZ.com twisted his words here. He actually LIKED the way SummerSlam ended ... please click the Read the Rest of the Article link and read what he actually said before commenting on his piece.

 

[CJGV1]

would it make more sense for taker to come out and challenge punk on the mic or trademark mind games and appearing out of nowhere. strangely i think the undertaker making jeff 'vanish' does have a slight symbollic meaning. almost like the deadman took him away. i think the only motive is everyone loves taker and punk is pretty much the most disliked heel on smackdown right now.

also has anyone thought that maybe taker wont be challenging punk at breaking point? maybe punk will weasel his way out of an undertaker challenge and perhaps morrison will get a shot and taker will do some sort of run in. it would be a good way to build up the taker/punk fued and keep the belt on cm punk all while building up some cred for morrison.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Lol ...clearly the OP and most on here have not read the rest of what Heyman said.
WZ.com twisted his words here. He actually LIKED the way SummerSlam ended ... please click the Read the Rest of the Article link and read what he actually said before commenting on his piece.

I hope you wasn't commenting on me, because I know what he said, I read it. I was just referring to his statement about how heelish it was and for 'Taker, it wasn't heelish at all. That is what he does.

 

[The Todd]

CM Punk has been bashing the fans for weeks now. Saying they all have their life wrong and they should be like him. CM Punk then crushed the only hope the fans had in shutting the man who is insulting them up. Enter the Undertaker.

Is he or is he not the top babyface on Smackdown? Would the top babyface be the most likely option to stand up for the fans? Did the live crowd mark out like bitches when the gong hit (after being the shittest ppv crowd in recent history it must be added)? Are people more likely to watch Smackdown on Friday now?

The answer to all those questions is "yes" so Heyman is wrong.

 

[GOD]

Did anyone evn read the rest of the article ...?

Paul Heyman basically said that what they did with The Undertaker's return at Summerslam was one of the smartest things they've done in a long time!

But what does Paul Heyman know he's only worked a booking job in WWE before... These kids that sit on the internet like Slyfox & Lord Sideon that have never worked a day in their lives in the WWE know WAAAAAAAY more than Paul Heyman could ever!