WWE over the Limit 2012: CM Punk Beats Daniel Bryan, What It Means
Over the Limit 2012 saw Daniel Bryan and CM Punk clash in an epic match for the WWE Championship. The two former ROH wrestlers went at it for almost 25 minutes. When the proverbial smoke cleared, CM Punk emerged, still WWE Champion.
The finish saw Bryan lock Punk in the Yes! Lock. Before Punk could submit to Bryan, he rolled on his side and got Bryan on his back. This resulted in a three count and Punk retaining his championship. However, immediately after Punk won the match, he tapped out to Bryan's submission hold.
Despite that post-match submission, the record will always show that Punk was victorious. But what exactly did Punk gain from this? And what, if anything, did Bryan actually lose?
Obviously, Punk is still the WWE Champion. His six-month reign as champion lives on. His latest defense proved to be one of his toughest, though. While he came within a second of losing his title, Punk proved that he knows Bryan and can go with him hold for hold.
On the other hand, Bryan proved that he can wrestle Punk hold for hold. While Punk managed to keep his title reign alive, he only managed to do so by a matter of a few seconds. The former World Heavyweight Champion took Punk to his limits. While Punk tapping out took place after the match, it still proved that Bryan was too much for him to handle.
What does all this mean, exactly? The very fact that Bryan could make Punk tap out, whether or not it was during the match, proves that he is more than worthy of a rematch. It is likely that Bryan will request a rematch on those grounds alone. Bryan, as well as many fans, will hope for a rematch between the two simply because this match didn't declare which of them is definitively better.
Yes, Punk defeated Bryan. The nature of the finish, however, leaves room for Bryan to challenge Punk once again at the No Way Out PPV. Look for a rematch between the two.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?