Some wrestling fanatics believe exclusively in the "pure sport's build." They don't like any tomfoolery. No supernatural giants, no Irish midgets, no gimmicks. But even proponents of no run-ins and no fun understand that sometimes just a good match isn't enough. Paul Heyman, the former ECW promoter and WWE booker, who likes clean finishes and likes the focus on the action in the ring explains why the Punk finish worked, despite taking the focus off the in-ring action.
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?
The reason is because World Wrestling Entertainment smartly wanted to shift your attention away from the wounded warrior Jeff Hardy, and place the emphasis on the new direction the championship story on Smackdown will need to take. If Jeff Hardy was going to stay in WWE, this would be a shortcut to Undertaker challenging Punk, and it would be all wrong for business. But it's the very fact that Hardy is taking a hiatus from WWE that makes this not only a memorable moment in SummerSlam history, but also the right move at the right time with the right players involved.
While I agree with Heyman, it's funny to see him reinvented as a fan of "logical booking." Some of his ECW shows were the epitome of "drug haze" bookings, having almost nothing to do with logic.