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, let's start at the top with the Final Face-off between Triple H and C.M. Punk on Monday's Raw. Was it everything you hoped it would be and more? Or, did it fall short?

Greg Parks: Looking back on it, it fell short. But when I was engrossed in the face-off, it was a bit of a different story. I thought, as you and several others have pointed out, it didn't really flesh out their arguments any; and it didn't really do much to sell the match at NOC until Triple H brought things back around at the end. Rarely do you see something like the shoot interview/comments burn out as quickly as it has; Punk did the big interview in July, and about two months later, they're doing the same thing and people are already sick of it. Hard to believe it has run its course already, but it certainly has. James, in your opinion, if you were to crown a "winner" in Monday's debate, who would it be?

Caldwell: I don't know if you can crown a winner since the whole thing is a work pretending to be a shoot with limits on what they can touch. Punk can't blow the thing wide open, otherwise no one would ever watch WWE again. So, he's handcuffed. And Triple H is all over the place and I can't tell if that's intentional (the storyline being the COO is feeling the pressure) or unintentional (he's not good in this setting). I think I've moved from indifference the past month to "this is a burden to have to sit through each week." And not just because I'm recapping 10 straight minutes of going-nowhere dialogue until they finally get to the point of having a fight on Sunday and one person is going to win. But, because introducing all of these insider elements tears down the structure of the fictional wrestling environment. I feel like I'm no longer watching a wrestling show, but some sort of weird political debate. Ya know, where's Wolf Blitzer to moderate? I'm just over the whole thing.

Parks: I thought Punk handily won the debate, and I'm surprised at the number I've read who have disagreed. Punk's argument was that he was being held back and Triple H was all "the crowd is the indicator." And Punk brought up how over he was, even pointing to Survivor Series 2006 when he got a chant over DX and Hunter still repeated the "but but but the crowd!" stuff over and over again. I agree that none of it seemed to have to do with anything and I give Hunter credit, again, for bringing things back to the match, but I thought Punk made some points in his speech, especially about the bodybuilder fetish Hunter and Vince have, that Hunter had no real response to other than to point out others have made it without big muscles - that wasn't the point though, as Punk's point was the muscle-bound guys get more opportunities than others.

Caldwell: Right. I agree Hunter's arguments were really weak. I don't know how much of that is Hunter coming up with it and how much is the Creative Team helping with input, but it was almost embarrassing. I think the issue on Punk's side is it feels very tired. I think rushing him back to TV instantly cut the legs out from under Punk's character and didn't allow the audience to anticipate his grand return. Working with Triple H and Kevin Nash probably didn't help either, as WWE's audience has been conditioned to accept the larger-than-life stars over guys like Punk, so it makes it seem like Punk is heeling on the general audience for indirectly criticizing their acceptance of who WWE has historically presented as top stars. At the end of the day, I definitely see where you're coming from and I see where the other side is. I just hope we don't have to sit through these segments again. As for the match itself, Greg, do you think they sold people on the match who were on the fence and, now three days before the PPV, what's your expected outcome?

Parks: I don't really know how the main-event talking segment would've sold people that were on the fence. I just don't see it. I think too much time was spent on them talking in circles. I think most people had made up their minds by the time that segment aired, anyway. I do think Hunter will win - as I've said, I believe it's too early for his COO run to end. But I think there has to be interference, hence the no-DQ stip, in order for Punk to continue on his path of looking to "change" WWE. If he loses clean, I don't know where he'd go from here. So Hunter does need help to win, not for himself, but in order to keep Punk's gimmick and storyline on the tracks.

Caldwell: I think it's a very safe bet there will be multiple instances of interference. I think Truth & Miz dropped a little hint of potential interference against Hunter on Raw, but it could also be one of those things where WWE caught wind of people (such as) talking about Truth & Miz possibly interfering, so they played into it on Raw to create a red herring. If WWE is going the interference route, I think it makes sense for Hunter to fight off Truth & Miz, Punk to fight off a person or persons, but then have the ultimate interference come from someone else that ultimately costs Punk the match. That way Punk has that argument you mentioned and Hunter can't say "we both dealt with interference, so tough luck, Punk." Punk needs more fuel for his character's anti-establishment fire. I just don't know which players get involved, though. Any guesses?

Parks: I'd guess Ace, Nash or Steph. I'd be surprised if Nash was involved this early after his release, but I can't rule it out. I think they'll go the interference route but have Hunter play dumb again, as he has this entire angle. "I had no idea they were running in, they did it on their own" like the Nash thing. I'm still 50/50 on Miz and Truth interfering...I feel like Punk is not a full heel so if they interfere on his behalf, they may get a babyface reaction, and I don't know that WWE is ready for that yet. That's another question James: Who do you see WWE portraying as the babyface in this feud: Hunter or Punk?

Caldwell: It's funny you mentioned that because Pat McNeill and I discussed that topic in yesterday's Livecast and I think Pat had a great answer that viewers have to decide which one is "less hatable" after that promo exchange. Overall, I think Hunter is a face to the general audience since he's The Game and he recently hung out with Shawn Michaels and he talks about the fans and he's misunderstood and Nash lied to him, etc., etc., but I think Punk is still the hero to the 18-34 demo. So, I still think coming out of this that Hunter will still be portrayed as the misunderstood, but heroic authority figure who "has the best interests in mind for WWE" (and anything heelish he might do in the match would be chalked up to him looking out for the WWE fans by saving his job) and Punk will be the rebellious, but scrappy underdog who is still being "held down." Barring a major storyline development, I don't think either portrayal will change, but I think both will have their own ways of drawing sympathy coming out of the match. From your perspective, Greg, who do you think will be the ultimate face coming out of this?

Parks: I think it's gotta be Punk. This whole "I have no idea what's going on" routine that Hunter has just scream out for a heel turn, and that he really DID know what was going on after all. The reaction on Monday night seemed to indicate most fans were behind Punk too. As now, I think WWE wants both men to play the face role, as you said, perhaps catering to different audiences, but Hunter has looked so inept they almost have to be setting him up for a heel turn, don't they?

Caldwell: I agree. That's where I think a major storyline development has to be coming, or perhaps they wait until Hell in a Cell (or the night after HIAC) with such a quick turnaround from Night of Champions to HIAC to make that happen. I don't think WWE wants to throw too much at their audience like that, but if I go with that scenario, I almost have to go against my belief there won't be a Hunter-Punk re-match. Maybe they book the re-match at HIAC and that's where the big heel turn (NWO/Clique reunion?) happens with Punk trapped inside the Cell. I don't think WWE needs another heel authority figure, but it seems inevitable they're going that route with Hunter. Greg, do you think there will be a Hunter-Punk re-match or will Sunday be it for their in-ring feud?

Parks: I don't think it CAN be it. It's such a big match-up with two big names, to go one and done, I don't think that's of WWE's philosophy to milk a cow until it's dry (see Orton vs. Christian). Now, there are detours the guys can take before their rematch, so it may not necessarily be at Hell in a Cell. But I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see a re-match (perhaps on free TV? They did just do Punk vs. Cena on Raw, and what better way to draw an audience away from the NFL to give away Hunter's in-ring return on Raw?) sooner rather than later.

Caldwell: Good point. How silly of me to think they would save the re-match for pay television! I think you're right they might do some form of Hunter-Punk match on television, perhaps even in a tag match so it's not completely giving away the match. But, I think at the end of the day on Sunday, with that No DQ stipulation added, there will be some chaos that will have to lead to a re-match. It should be interesting Sunday night. Greg, Hunter-Punk is obviously the big item for the PPV, but there's some thought Cena-Del Rio could close the PPV. I don't see how that's possible considering Hunter-Punk has received the majority of the hype (unless Cena is winning the title and they want to end the PPV on a high note), but what's your expectation for the Cena-Del Rio outcome and what did you think of the final hype involving Bret Hart on Raw?

Parks: The hype involving Bret was strictly because they were in Canada, and I wouldn't read much more into that. As for what goes on last, if this WEREN'T Night of Champions, I'd agree that Punk vs. Hunter would go on last. But since this is a PPV that is built around every title being on the line, I'm a little less convinced that Hunter and Punk will go on last. It's a possibility, but not as strong, to me, as it would be were it any other PPV. Cena vs. Del Rio has to be one of the least-anticipated title matches in some time, thanks in part to Punk-Hunter siphoning the attention away, as well as Cena inexplicably running down Del Rio's character. I just don't get what Cena or WWE gains by constantly pointing out that Del Rio is a fake and doesn't really own all those cars. James, can you make some sense of that line of thinking?

Caldwell: It's the same level of thought that went into some of Hunter's arguments in the final segment: none! I get what WWE is trying to do with that same old thing they do with most heels these days: point out the flaws so the audience laughs and points. But, when the characters are so fragile and not supported by long-term build-up, the audience doesn't take the characters seriously or feel moved to spend money to see the heel get his comeuppance. Now, Del Rio isn't Ted DiBiase 2010 where DiBiase's heel character was just torn apart by the booking week after week, but for a WWE Title situation, it doesn't make any sense for the lead babyface to tear down the heel he's challenging for the title. First, nothing has been accomplished through victory and, second, the face is dragged down with the heel if he can't beat the guy he just tore down. It's just inane. Do you think Cena re-takes the title, Greg, or does Del Rio keep the title through to the Mexico TV tapings, or perhaps Cena and Del Rio play hot potato with a few title changes before Del Rio has it again going to Mexico?

Parks: I would absolutely say del Rio wins, if Cena hadn't lost in the previous two PPVs. I find it hard to believe Cena would lose in three PPVs in a row, but with the Mexico tour coming up, I wouldn't be surprised if Del Rio did hold the title, at least until after the tour.

Caldwell: I agree there's no way I see Cena losing three straight PPV title matches, which makes me think they might have Cena win on Sunday, Del Rio wins the re-match at Hell in a Cell so he's champ going to Mexico, and Cena wins back the title sometime this fall. I'm not advocating more title changes, but I think they've booked themselves in a corner where they have to. Moving to the mid-card-level programs on Raw, what jumped out at you from the U.S., Tag, and Divas Title situations?

Parks: I'm really surprised how little WWE has done to make the Divas of Destruction seem dominant. Seems like Kelly Kelly gets the best of them at every turn...how dominant can they be then? Not only that, but they're deriding the Divas for dressing like Barbie Dolls, yet Beth and Natalya are more glammed-up than normal. I fell like WWE may be overcompensating for people who think Kelly would have no chance against Beth, and unintentionally making Beth and Nattie look bad because Kelly is out-smarting them (and beating them) and nearly every turn.

Caldwell: Very good point. A little bit of that even-it-out, handicap-the-stronger-competitor PPV build-up to make it seem like Kelly has a chance on Sunday. I think you're right they're hurting Beth & Natalya in the process, going back to what I said about Del Rio that WWE's characters are so delicate and not build on long-term booking. Do you agree with Jim Ross that Beth takes the title on Sunday or will the rug be pulled out from under her via the hometown curse?

Parks: I think she's gotta win here; she already lost at Summerslam. If she loses here, what do the DOD have to hang their hat on?

Caldwell: If Kelly retains, perhaps it becomes Natalya's turn to chase the title, but Beth is hurt in the process. I agree Beth wins, but do they keep the Beth-Kelly program going? It's not like there are a lot of options, but has it already run its course?

Parks: I don't think so. I think if they win, they've added another dimension, that being Kelly's chase for the title. Then again, I can also see her retaining and moving on to Natalya, as you say. But WWE has always been higher on Beth than Nattie, so I'd be surprised if Beth loses twice, only for Kelly to move on to Natalya.

Caldwell: Right. Natalya is more of the supporting star, a la Layla being the support to McCool. As for the U.S. Title situation, who's your prediction to win the four-way match and is there any reason to care? Right now, it's basically two heels fighting over a heel manager, John "invisible" Morrison, and Alex "where's The Miz to make me relevant again?" Riley.

Parks: You said it, which is why I think Swagger wins, to further the divide between Vickie and Ziggler. Vickie will prefer to stick with the winner, that being Swagger, and Ziggler will become even more jealous.

Caldwell: Ah, I like that booking. They need something to advance this program from stuck in neutral to actually on the move and having Swagger win would make the most sense. Greg, anything else from Raw jump out at you worth discussing?

Parks: I think we've spent enough time on Raw this week. Let's move on to NXT. Still no sign of any competition for the past few weeks, and we got the return of Michael Cole. James, what did you make of Cole's return and some of the reasons why they may have trotted him out?

Caldwell: I think it was as simple as Cole was waiting for the Smackdown taping, Korpela was on an island for the main event, and decision-makers backstage figured, "What the heck?, Send Cole out there!" It was such an absurd segment, with Cole presenting arguments even worse than Triple H's (by design in this instance) that distracted from the match. But, it's not like it mattered since the match and this show have nothing to do with the original purpose of NXT. I think this show is now just a standard, weekly, episodic wrestling show that will forever be stuck on Season 5.

Parks: It sure feels like it. I felt it was more of an initiation for Jack Korpela, since this is a slight step-up from his Superstars gig, and Vince/whoever is in charge wanted to send Cole out there to toy with him a little bit to see how he reacted.

Caldwell: That's a great point. I think I took more of a "they don't care about this show" view of why they sent Cole out there, but I think you're right it was a bit of a test for Korpela. I thought Korpela got caught up in Cole's rantings, but that was an impossible task for any announcer to handle. What do you make of the latest developments with Hornswoggle "kidnapped," Striker losing to Young again, and no Yoshi this week?

Parks: Hornswoggle kidnapped just seemed to advance the AJ/Maxine feud, and, may I say, A.J. played the part perfectly. She even showed some hesitance, wondering where Horny was, in coming to the ring. If that were kelly Kelly, she'd still be smiling and waving all the way to the ring. No Yoshi was a curiosity, since I thought his return in his new gimmick was pretty well-received last week. Striker losing seems only necessary because of the dearth of wrestlers on the NXT roster and in order to continue this never-ending season, they need new people to carry some of the in-ring portions.

Caldwell: I thought William Regal was fine in the main event, but they need to limit his exposure in the ring so it actually means something when he wrestles. (Of course, that's working under the assumption anything that happens on NXT means something.) But for the Most Random Moment Of The Week...what was with the Usos's sudden run-in to clear the heels?

Parks: I assume that will be answered on a future episode of NXT. At least they're getting exposure, since they seem to have been forgotten about soon after their return on Smackdown.

Caldwell: Which is a major lost opportunity for WWE to actually make it seem like they're trying to re-build a tag division. Greg, anything else on NXT before we tackle TNA?

Parks: I don't think so. We've got a pretty big show coming up tonight, with Flair vs. Sting, perhaps follow-up on Jeff Hardy, and fall-out from the TNA PPV from Sunday. James, how are you expecting things to shake out tonight as far as the title situation/BFG Series goes?

Caldwell: Without going into what I've been told, which would reveal spoilers, I like the concept of Robert Roode going on a quest before facing Kurt Angle at Bound for Glory. We'll see if TNA can execute starting tonight, but I think the key will be what Bruce Mitchell said in the post-PPV Roundtable for VIP members that TNA really has to show & tell their TV audience what happened at No Surrender when Roode had a star-making night. They can't just jump right into this as if everyone at home knows Roode was made into a star at the PPV. They have to show it to their audience, so I'll be looking out for that. As for Sting-Flair, man, that's over 110 years in the ring. I just hope TNA makes the match look the slightest bit credible. What are you expecting from the title situation and Sting-Flair?

Parks: My expectations are low: A short match with lots of shortcuts. As for Roode, I mentioned this in my post-PPV text RT, that the last time TNA attempted to "make" someone during a PPV was with the Pope during the 8-card Stud tournament in 2010, and we know how well that worked out. Suffice to say, I'm taking a "I'll believe it when I see it" approach to TNA really putting over Roode as a singles star.

Caldwell: Oh, the old eight-card Stud tournament. What a memory that was. As for another player in this situation from No Surrender, where does Mr. Anderson go from here?

Parks: No clue. They're booking him like Steve Austin, and rather obviously I must say, but from month-to-month, TNA can't seem to decide who to focus on: One month it's Angle, another month it's Anderson, another month it's Sting, another month it's Roode. That hurts the booking of everyone.

Caldwell: Don't forget Gunner!

Parks: No, I'll forget Gunner.

Caldwell: Well-played! As for the X Division, it's probably another round of Aries-Kendrick along with Jesse Sorensen in the mix as new #1 contender. Other than A-Double being one of the greatest men alive along with Ricardo Rodriguez, what do you expect from the X Division leading to BFG?

Parks: I'd love to see the X Division built around Austin Aries from here on out, with some really strong babyfaces to challenge him. I just don't see it, but this would be a great opportunity for TNA to really build the division and begin to produce some solid babyfaces.

Caldwell: Paging Zima Ion. He's disappeared, leaving Sorensen and Kendrick as the top faces opposite Aries. As you said, they need to re-build the face side of the ledger to give Aries some opponents. Greg, anything else TNA-related on your heart or mind today?

Parks: Not really. You mention Sorensen, and I don't think he's the babyface to really challenge Aries at this point - he's not 3D enough right now. Ion, on the other hand, could be that babyface. I loved his appearance on the NatGeo show about Indy wrestling, which I wrote about in my column in this week's Torch newsletter.

Caldwell: Very good tie-in. I'm looking forward to reading that. I'm also looking for TNA to find Ion and get him back on TV. We shall see. Greg, let the readers know what's on tap for Gonzo & The Greg this weekend in VIP Audio.

Parks: This week on Gonzo & The Greg: We look at the top five worst wrestler names in history. Worst names, not gimmicks.

Caldwell: I think Duke the Dumpster straddles that fine line quite well. More like a Venn diagram where he's in the middle of both categories.

Parks: True. In fact, I've got my top five listed already, and more than a dozen honorable mentions, and I don't even have the Dumpster on there!

Caldwell: Let me pick your brain a little on how you're forming your list. Are you thinking along the lines of just plain awful names, bad puns (e.g. Adam Bomb), or a subjective criteria where you just know it when you see it?

Parks: Subjective. There are really bad names (and a lot of newere WWE names may apply, where they try to give someone a "normal" name thatends up being lame), but also bad puns as well. Some that make you embarrassed to be a wrestling fan, or like the Dumpster, those that describe an awful gimmick.

Caldwell: Ah, very good. That's what we call a little teaser for the audio this weekend! Looking forward to it. Greg, I know you'll be at the PPV this Sunday and we'll hopefully run a post-PPV Livecast Sunday night with instant reactions to the show from both in-person and PPV perspectives. Looking forward to it and thanks for the chat!

Parks: Yes, and I'll also be Tweeting live during Impact tonight @gregmparks, so follow me for that as well!

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!