On a weekly basis, PWTorch staffers James Caldwell and Greg Parks have a Lounge-style chat reviewing the week in TV wrestling and looking ahead to what's next for key storylines, matches, and future events. An occasional "Seinfeld" or "The Office" reference is also mixed in for good measure.

James Caldwell: This is PWTorch assistant editor James Caldwell joined by PWTorch columnist Greg Parks for our weekly TV wrestling chat. Greg, we get to change up the format a little this week with a Smackdown that has already aired to talk about without avoiding Friday Spoilers and no original NXT content to talk about, so I say we start with the latest developments with Triple H and C.M. Punk that spilled over from Raw to Smackdown. What's your take first of all on WWE going ahead with Hunter-Punk at Night of Champions and second, the contract signing promo exchange on Tuesday?

Greg Parks: First off, as I said in my Smackdown report, I think we need a moratorium on contract signings. There's gotta be another way to get the points across WWE needs to. That said, with Raw and Smackdown this week, it seems WWE is getting away from the whodunit of the text message and focusing more on the macro issue between CM Punk as a guy who wants to shake things up and Triple H as the boss. I'm not saying they're not going to eventually answer that question, but the whole mystery surrounding these major players seems to be less the focus this week.

Caldwell: Yeah, and that's frustrating, as they seem to be going back and forth between whether they're going to address the text message issue (mentioned again on Raw) or whether they're going to lead to McMahon coming back (focused on again on Smackdown). Perhaps it will all tie together in the end, but, right now, this journey is too windy, the driver doesn't know where he's going, no one seems to have a map, and I'm getting car-sick. As for the Hunter-Punk promo exchange, I thought they eventually got where they wanted to get setting up Hunter wanting to beat Punk in a fight and Punk standing up to authority in a fight, but it took waaaaaay too long to get there and it was too insider at times. The thing about McMahon intentionally losing because it was good for business took this "worked shoot" business too far. I think they've lost touch a little. Did you feel as strongly about that or do you think the positives outweighed the negatives?

Parks: I didn't feel it was as inside as previous promos, as I thought they mostly kept things understandable to the general audience, even if what they talked about didn't all take place behind the scenes - let's face it, everyone knows Vince is the boss whether he's on screen as that character or not, so it's nothing shocking or hard to understand for the fans when they mention that. But yeah, it did seem to drag, though I thought Punk did a really nice job with his promo. Triple H was just okay, but I've never been a huge fan of him as a promo guy, anyway.

Caldwell: One thing that was really interesting to me was how the crowd received the promo. That was a middle-America, mainstream, Cena Era crowd and they more accepted Hunter's speech than Punk's speech. The crowd reaction was there in patches for Punk, but they were more into Hunter. Looking ahead to Night of Champions, you'll be there in Buffalo. How do you anticipate the crowd reacting to each Hunter and Punk?

Parks: I think it'll be somewhat mixed. Hunter has been portrayed as a huge star for years, so he's definitely going to get that star reaction- and being off TV and not wrestling for a while won't hurt. But the Buffalo crowd hasn't seen the "new" CM Punk yet either, and if he has any steam left coming into NOC, I'm sure the 20-something male demographic will welcome him with open arms.

Caldwell: I'll pause on you comment on whether he'll have steam going into the PPV. It seems like Punk's character has been rocky the last few weeks in terms of is he a true main-event player or is he hanging around the main event scene? I think there's a big difference. Now, WWE (and Hunter) have a vested interest in giving him some steam going into the PPV, but there's Kevin Nash hanging around and complicating the Punk-Hunter issue. Throw in WWE's last-second change to Punk's PPV match on Raw and I wonder how WWE handles Nash's involvement without hurting NOC. Where do you see Nash fitting in to the PPV build and overall major storyline?

Parks: I for sure think he shows up at the PPV in some form, possibly causing a DQ finish to Hunter-Punk; I just can't see that match ending cleanly. Or at least, it probably shouldn't. Punk's problem was against Cena, he was all about the WWE Title and what it meant if he held it as far as power. Now, he doesn't seem concerned with it at all, and seems happy to trade barbs with the COO. I think his character has suffered a bit from schizophrenic writing.

Caldwell: That's the problem with how WWE books the WWE Title - sometimes it's the most important thing in the company, but most of the time it's merely a prop in the middle of a larger issue - as you said with Punk trying to obtain power through a title quest leading to MITB. I think WWE made a big mistake when McMahon's character flippantly booked a title tournament the night after MITB, which hurt the title, Punk's quest and, several weeks later, his character. Agreed there. With the Hunter-Punk match expected to end in a non-finish/DQ, do you anticipate a re-match or WWE shifting Hunter's focus somewhere else, perhaps to resolving the power struggle with Stephanie and/or Vince? How do you see this playing out in the fall season?

Parks: Once Nash's issues get cleared up, I see them working him into a match with Punk; how long that takes or when it happens, I don't know but it was clear the direction they were going was Nash vs. Punk before Nash's health issues came up. I think it's risky to do Punk vs. Hunter now, because to me, it makes more sense to wait on that match 'til after Punk is done with Nash (Nash acting sort of as a stepping stone to get to Hunter). However, I understand them wanting Punk on the PPV in some capacity, and if he couldn't be in the title match, Hunter seems to make the most sense at this point.

Caldwell: Nash's health issue clearly handicapped WWE's booking and Cena-Del Rio isn't a strong enough main event to stand alone as the reason to order a PPV, so they almost seemed desperate to save this PPV with Hunter's PPV in-ring return. Who knows what they're sacrificing long-term with this short-term booking, but it all goes back to when they rushed Punk back to TV and now they have to sleep in the bed they made. (I'm full of odd analogies today.) Anyways, Greg, about the Cena-Del Rio issue. Del Rio missed TV due to his visa issues and Cena had quite the oddball promo on Tuesday's Smackdown before the odd booking of him completely squashing Barrett. What's your take on Cena's character right now and the title match build?

Parks: I have no clue. That promo Tuesday night was awful, and I don't get the booking of Barrett to lose in 3:00. I really question that, and I'm not as high on Barrett as some people are. I hope this isn't a sign of things to come in terms of what's going to happen when the huge stars start showing up on both Raw and Smackdown and the mid card and upper mid card guys get sacrificed.

Caldwell: Really the only Smackdown stars given any - and I mean any - shine on Tuesday were Sheamus, Orton, Christian, and Henry, which are the same four who have been shined on Smackdown for the past four months since the Draft. The rest of the SD roster was de-validated or non-existent and the majority of the show seemed like the third hour of a Raw episode. WWE even had the tag champs make a cameo from Raw with no one (Usos) stepping up from SD to make a title challenge. I'm with you, Greg, on being nervous about this brand mixture, especially if it hurts Raw's mid-card on Mondays and Smackdown's mid-card on Fridays. Something Pat McNeill and I talked about in the Livecast yesterday is whether the top titles will be unified under this "Supershow" concept. Do you see it happening and/or do you think it should happen?

Parks: I suppose it depends on how long WWE really intends to keep this Supershow format. If they're completely scrapping the brand split, then, yeah, I see no reason why there should be two major titles (and really, two secondary titles either). But if this is something short-term to shake up the ratings, even for a few months, I'm not sure that's the best way to go.

Caldwell: When WWE sees this not making a difference in the ratings, I think they'll slowly scrap it, ignore it (e.g. the Raw GM), or have Hunter removed from power and another McMahon end it. Hypothetically, though, I think WWE should have: one WWE champion, one Intercontinental champion, one Divas champion, and one set of tag champions. The problem they would always run into, though, is not having a top champion on Raw and Smackdown house shows each weekend (assuming they keep that separation for house shows). I think WWE has damaged the U.S. Title to where it doesn't mean anything and WWE could return to the traditional one top champion, one mid-card champion, and two separate division champions without a brand split. How would you break down the titles if they combined (in whatever form it would look like) the brands?

Parks: If they combined the brands, I'd do the same thing you did as far as what champions there are. Separate brands, though, I'm fully in favor of two major champions and two secondary champs. But again, it all depends on how long this combining of the brands lasts. The other thing not mentioned is Cena promised to face Rock as champion at WM. Plus, you have the Rumble winner presumably facing a champ at WM, and Daniel Bryan saying he was going to cash in at WM. That's already one too many if you had two major champions, but if you end up combining them, all of a sudden you've got one major title match at 'Mania and three guys with claims to it. What do you do then?

Caldwell: Exactly right on all the title complications. I strongly believe WWE is going to move completely away from Rock-Cena being for the title. That match doesn't need a title on the line and, because WWE has de-valued the title so much over the years, would almost seem to water down the match. I could see WM28 shaking out with Cena-Rock, Taker-Hunter, Orton-Rumble winner-Bryan for the World Title in a three-way, and Del Rio or Miz vs. Punk for the WWE Title. That's if they don't combine top titles and brands. If they do, then I have no idea how they sort out Bryan and the Rumble winner. Or, they would unify the titles before Mania and have the Unified champ vs. the Rumble winner and remove Bryan's MITB claim along the way. They would have a lot to sort out. Greg, both Raw and Smackdown were top-heavy shows focused on the main event scene, so I think we've covered the over-arching storylines. On the Smackdown side, what did you make of the Orton-Christian conclusion and where they're going now?

Parks: One solution could be to vacate the titles prior to the Rumble, have the Rumble match be for the Title (making it even MORE star-studded because champions wouldn't be left out this year), then have Bryan challenge the Rumble winner/Elim. Chamber winner at 'Mania and, as you said, have Cena vs. Rock be a straight-up one-on-one match. I've been on record as being a fan of the Orton vs. Christian matches, but not so much the feud. I think making Christian a whiny loser wasn't really the way to go, especially because they truly ran it into the ground, giving Christian little credibility except for fluke wins over Orton, while Orton seemed to beat him strongly and often. Unless Christian weasels his way into the N.O.C. title match, it looks like Orton vs. Henry. From a live perspective, not too exciting to see, but Henry and his character certainly deserve this opportunity.

Caldwell: Two things there - do you think Christian apologizes for the error of his ways, earns Orton's respect after their series of matches, and turns face again for the next chapter? My concern is he'll disappear now that Henry-Orton is being spotlighted unless they change his character. Second, do you think Henry takes the title and has a title run to match his push?

Parks: I think it's too early for Christian to turn back as a babyface - he's insulted the crowd in just about every one of his promos (a sure sign creative/Vince isn't sold on him as a strong heel so they want him to get cheap heat) and it's not easy to go back on that. Second, no, I don't think he wins the title, at least, not in his first try. I wouldn't rule it out, perhaps at Hell in a Cell, where he could win without pinning Orton (because Lord knows Orton can't lose for some reason). But it's a testament to Henry that we're even thinking he could beat Orton for the title, looking at where he was a few months ago.

Caldwell: You touched on something hanging over WWE's head starting at NOC - three PPVs in five weeks. I think you're right on that Orton retains at NOC, then Henry gets another shot at Hell in a Cell and perhaps wins there, then WWE turns around with the re-match at Vengeance. So, that might take care of the Smackdown side for the next few months. I like what you wrote in your Smackdown report last week that every Smackdown should end with Henry trash-talking as they fade to black. Henry's finally hit his stride and WWE is protecting him, so I think it's time for a title run to cash in on the time they've spent building him up. Also on Smackdown, Greg, what's your theory on Sin Cara's apparent heel turn on Bryan in the post-match? I thought it was bizarre, but do you think WWE has a plan for this?

Parks: Yeah, the first thing I thought of when I saw it was, "well, Hunico's going to be the heel Sin Cara and Mistico will be the face Sin Cara." I thought it was clear that's where they were going, because having one heel Sin Cara doesn't make a lot of sense from a merchandise standpoint. It did seem to come out of nowhere though. Maybe on the tour of Mexico, Mistico will return as Cara? The whole thing is confusing, as I wrote about for this week's Torch newsletter.

Caldwell: One theory we tossed around on the Livecast yesterday was WWE turning Sin Cara heel on TV, then when they go to Mexico, WWE will try to make it seem like the crowd is booing Sin Cara because he's a heel, not because he's a fraud since that audience will know the difference between. I think the Fake vs. Real Sin Cara would confuse WWE's U.S. audience too much. It's just a mess. But, we'll see how it shakes out. Greg, anything else on the Smackdown side worth talking about?

Parks: I mean, I think the whole Mexico explanation is a little more complicated than the fake vs. real Sin Cara. You could always have the fake one forced to wear different colors than the real one once the real one comes back. That'll confuse viewers a little less, although this would be tough to pull off with Mistico not being able to speak English. Not much else on the Smackdown side, other than wondering who Cody Rhodes will face at Night of Champions. Ted DiBiase seems the only likely choice, though it's not like he's earned it.

Caldwell: Another possibility we talked about on the Livecast was perhaps Vickie Guerrero managing Heel Sin Cara so someone can speak for him. I think it's an interesting thought of WWE is going all the way with Vickie managing a whole stable of heels. As for Rhodes, yeah, it seems like DiBiase as a face is the only option on short notice. I think it would be a good match, but not as meaningful as it could be on short notice. As for the Tag Titles and Divas Title, who do you think gets the nods to challenge for those titles?

Parks: Good idea on Vickie managing heel Cara. That'd be cool. Tag titles is a toss-up; could be an established team like the Usos or a make-shift team that comes out of nowhere. Divas title I would've expected Beth or Nattie but being in Beth's hometown, not sure if they'd give her that shot as a heel. Plus, one of the Bellas just beat Kelly on Raw, which one would think would entitle her to a shot. I thought it made no sense for Kelly to lose there.

Caldwell: I'd like to see Kofi & Bourne vs. the Usos, just to help legitimize an actual tag team in this so-called re-born division. I'm not convinced Beth gets the Divas Title shot in Buffalo, and I think it will either be Natalya or one of the Bellas, like you said, based on that odd booking on Raw. The Kelly-Bellas issue is beyond stale, so I don't know why they keep re-visiting it. Meanwhile, is WWE building to a Jerry Lawler vs. Mike and/or David Otunga match? What's going on with that one?

Parks: I hope a young guy gets the rub by being with Lawler to take on McGillicutty and Otunga. But I'm not holding my breath.

Caldwell: Yep. Agreed there. Greg, anything else WWE-related before we touch on Impact Wrestling?

Parks: I suppose not.

Caldwell: Very good. Impact as of late - they're on the road this week, Jeff Hardy officially returns next week, there was a nutty Sting-Hogan-Flair segment last week that drove people away after it aired, and Mr. Anderson returned as Faux Stone Cold. TNA seems to be spinning their wheels looking for some direction right now. What's your evaluation of TNA's product right now?

Parks: Not good, James. Not good. Sting vs. Hogan (or Flair) is not the focus they should be going for. The X Division has not grown as promised. And Stone Cole Ken Anderson is not the answer. With Beer Money losing that tag titles to a mid-card team, there's not much to get excited about except Mexican Hero Jeff Jarrett.

Caldwell: You nailed it, Greg. They're back to where the focus inevitably falls: Jarrett. TNA, at its core, is a promotion designed to get over Jarrett as a national TV star. As of right now, do you think the Sting-Hogan match actually happens at Bound for Glory or do they create some sort of alternative match involving those two?

Parks: I'm thinking an alternative, but as of right now, it sure looks like that's the direction they're heading. Hogan may say he's ready to go, but the company may find out that isn't the caser the closer we get to the PPV.

Caldwell: I think they'll have to make it a tag match if Hogan is booked for a match. Perhaps Hogan and Ray vs. Sting and Anderson with Flair in Hogan and Ray's corner. (As long as it's not Hogan and Abyss so we don't have to re-visit The Ring storyline, I'll take it.) But, I don't know how marketable Hogan and Sting together in the ring again in TNA is right now. BFG was sold last year on the 10-10-10 reveal. I don't see TNA getting there this year unless something buzz-worthy happens between No Surrender and BFG. Greg, that's all I have on Impact. Anything else you'd like to cover or plug before we wrap up this week?

Parks: Sure. This week on Gonzo & The Greg, in honor of WWE's OMG top 50 moments DVD, we'll be discussing the Top 5 Most Shocking moments in WWE History. Also, check out my blog post from yesterday in the VIP forum, where I did a brief review of Nat Geo's special on Indie Wrestling. Let's see, already plugged the column. And check out my Smackdown report from Tuesday. I guess that's it.

Caldwell: Very good. And you and I will be on the Livecast tomorrow talking more about these topics and the latest news from the next 24 hours. Looking forward to it! Thanks for the chat, Greg.

Parks: You're welcome as always, James.

We suggest these recent related articles...

CALDWELL'S WWE "NXT: HOUSTON" LIVE RESULTS 9/17: Complete "virtual-time" coverage of Balor, Joe, Bayley, more from debut show in Texas

CALDWELL'S LIVE REPORT - 7/12 Lone Star in Houston, Tex.: Alberto El Patron no-shows, Dreamer vs. Hoyt new main event; plus Duggan, Snitsky, Cabana vs. Mahal, Joey Ryan, Rowe vs. Hernandez, Ivellise, Catrina, Houston Carson, one title change, more

CALDWELL: A Top 10 for 10 Years - Hall of Fame, George, Sweet Tea, Studio B, Duke, Three-Pack, and you!