On a weekly basis, PWTorch staffers James Caldwell and Greg Parks have a casual, yet insightful, 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 chat on TV wrestling. Greg, let's start with Monday's Raw, which was one of those seemingly self-contained shows in-between PPVs that offered two hours of TV content, but really didn't do anything. I felt it just sat there as a take-it-or-leave-it show. Do you agree or do you believe more was accomplished than I'm giving it credit for?

Greg Parks: I don't think any more was accomplished, but I can't say I wasn't entertained, either. For a show with Muppets on it, WWE did what they could. They didn't stray too far into the "absurd" territory, which is the one fear I had. But like I said on the Livecast, I thought the booking hurt more than the Muppets, having title holders lose and Cena beat The Miz with little trouble, even with the interfering R-Truth.

Caldwell: It's one of those things where the final decision-makers on what made TV needed to take a step back and see if this really makes sense for (a) the WWE champion to lose clean and no one makes a big deal out of it, (b) Cena single-handedly takes out Truth and Miz, (c) there is no reply by Cena to Rock's acceptance for Survivor Series, and (d) giving away Cena-Miz, Del Rio-Show, and Punk-Henry with zero-to-minimal hype on a show that was sharing the spotlight with the Muppets. I think so much was happening - and having guest stars takes focus away from the writing team on the actual WWE matters at hand - that nothing could really stood out. Even having Rock on the show felt like a ho-hum affair, which made Survivor Series seem like not a big deal. I understand the appeal of SS is supposed to be what happens when Cena & Rock are in the same ring together for the first time, so Miz & Truth could just be broomsticks filling up space, but that point should have been stressed by Cena in a promo on this show. Granted, they have two more weeks of TV, but I felt they missed opportunities and wasted potential big matches to fill TV time this week.

Parks: And one has to wonder how much WWE thinks Cena and Rock teaming up will sell itself. Even if they believe that, if I were in WWE, I'd be wanting to push PPVs hard regardless because of how much the numbers have been down the past few years. But WWE seems more concerned with mainstream media attention they get from appearances by the Muppets and the like. You're right, the writing is what suffers.

Caldwell: Especially with how much impact Rock had on WrestleMania this year with revenue still being collected in the third quarter, you would think WWE's top priority would be making this feel as special as it possibly could be. Right now, it feels like WWE is in the position of a big-time sports team that feels like they can just show up, put on the uniform, and the victory (in this case, PPV buys) will be handed to them. But, I wonder if viewers will see Rock live & in the flesh on a three-hour Raw the week before Survivor Series and say, "Yeah, I've had my fill of cool Rock moments and I'll save my $50." WWE's priority has become propping up the TV shows, but WWE has an easy opportunity to pop a buyrate for Survivor Series with Rock's in-ring return and carry that over to WM28. To extend this football analogy, WWE is down a few TDs at halftime in a game they're supposed to win, but I don't see a sense of urgency to play inspired football in the second half. As for Rock's return promo on Raw, what did you make of it and his explanation for teaming with Cena?

Parks: I've had a rough few weeks of football fandom James, so I can definitely relate to those analogies. I thought Rock's explanation was weak, but I think his own performance was fine; it's not going to be as electric as when he's cutting it in front of a crowd, but it's only natural that way. Incorporating the Twitter-verse into his explanation wouldn't have been so bad if we weren't subjected to WWE's constant bowing at the altar of Twitter over the past few weeks and months. I think Rock's motivation for teaming with Cena and how that is established and fleshed out leading up to and even after the match, is one of the more interesting things to look out for, mostly because this scenario is different than usual in that they're teaming up now while also looking into the future and seeing themselves in a singles match at WrestleMania.

Caldwell: What was interesting was how Cena played up the tag team scenario in a WWE.com interview after Rock's "acceptance." Even with the odds in his favor teaming with Rock against two guys he took out by himself on Raw, he still found a way to stack the odds against him by playing up the idea that Rock could be setting him up for an ambush by working with Miz and Truth to turn it into a three-on-one scenario. There's no way that's happening and it's just Cena "stacking the deck" against himself when there is no deck to stack, but how much of the "tension" aspect do you see WWE playing up as they try to market the Clash of Two Generations for Survivor Series?

Parks: I would expect it to be played up significantly, as evidenced by Cena's comments, and I think that's the angle they'll be playing, rather than "can Miz and Truth beat Cena and Rock?" it'll be "Can Rock and Cena work together long enough to beat Miz and Truth?"

Caldwell: It's almost like the marketing is "see if the subtraction by addition (Rock)" puts Cena at a greater disadvantage and if they can pull together to overcome the odds they create for themselves! I think it's a bit silly, but I get what they're trying to do. And, from WWE's thinking, Miz & Truth just sharing a ring with Cena & Rock will elevate them, regardless of what happens on TV. I'm not sure what to expect from this Monday's taped show, which will, again, probably feel more like a take-it-or-leave-it, self-contained two hours of programming, but the real story will be the three-hour Raw. We shall see. Greg, about The Muppets, what did you think of their involvement and how WWE handled it?

Parks: I know one thing to expect: a phone booth and a car, which seem to be WWE's go-to props for England TV tapings. I thought the Muppets involvement was fine; I didn't have a problem with any of it. They were limited in what they could do, which I think was actually a good thing. But for a one-off show where they're not in that PPV hard-sell mode yet, it was fine.

Caldwell: I think WWE's presentation of the product has to come to the point where, if the audience is notified ahead of time what to expect, the audience can willingly suspend disbelief and go along with the idea of puppets appearing side-by-side wrestlers in the universe WWE has created. It reflects the state of WWE trying to appeal to a mass audience with a TV show that tries to "offer something for everyone." Success may vary (see MacGruber)... One thing that was really interesting from Raw, Greg, was the lack of focus on Hunter-Nash. Whether it was because Rock was on the show or neither Nash nor Hunter were scheduled to appear on Raw, WWE really didn't do much with that feud after giving it two full segments to start last week's Raw. It doesn't seem like a match is happening at Survivor Series at this point, so what do you make of where this feud is currently and how it plays into whatever we're supposed to be thinking about with the top storyline (conspiracies, authority figures, etc.)?

Parks: I think we did need a week, as viewers, for that feud to breathe a little. It was presented in a very heavy way the previous week on Raw and as you pointed out, took up two full segments on that show. With Hunter "out" due to injury, it made sense not to push things further on this week's show, especially with the Rock's announcement and the Muppets. It was a lighter show as far as tone because of the Muppets, so more of the Nash-Hunter stuff would've felt a little out of place.

Caldwell: That's a very good point. For a feud taking that serious tone with images and suggestions of Hunter "struggling for breath and life" last week, it probably wasn't best to mix it in too strongly on a show built around light Muppets material. As for some other items on the show, what did you think of how they got to the Del Rio-Punk match at Survivor Series, Team Vickie (Dolph & Swagger) taking losses to Ryder and Santino, and the latest from the Divas feud between Eve & Kelly vs. Beth & Natalya?

Parks: I'm hoping Team Vickie vs. Team Kofi and Santino (with Bourne out) ends up turning into a Survivor Series elimination match at the PPV. An Eve and Beth re-match makes sense, though A.Fox beat Nattie two weeks ago and I thought they'd move on to her as a challenger. Del Rio vs. Punk had an interesting set-up, but I think the heat on both men has cooled, so that's something WWE needs to improve on heading into the PPV.

Caldwell: It seemed like A. Fox was moving into that #1 contender slot, but WWE can also bring her along slowly associating with Eve & Kelly if they actually have plans for her. I would like to be able to say I'm surprised the heat has cooled on Punk & Del Rio, but it's not surprising since WWE's title situation has been dreadful the past few months with the title going back and forth, little emphasis on wins & losses, and Del Rio almost taking on Jack Swagger-as-World-champ properties. I don't see Punk taking the title at Survivor Series, which could help stabilize the title situation with Del Rio as champ for more than two PPVs. What do you think of Punk's chances at MSG?

Parks: I could go either way, to be honest. I could buy Punk winning more so than I could Cena winning this last month. Of course, I do agree that Del Rio needs to hold the title for the foreseeable future.

Caldwell: I'm sure I'll opinions will change between now and then as we see how the build-up unfolds these next two weeks. Greg, anything else of note from Raw worth breaking down?

Parks: Nah. How about Impact last night? They got the title to Bobby Roode via shenanigans, which normally would make me pull the hair out of my head, but TNA did a nice job in their camera work showing Roode eyeing the beer bottle outside the ring, and using it in a moment of desperation. I think we both agree that they should've held off on this match for a while, but for what they did do, how do you think they pulled it off?

Caldwell: If there ever was an episode that needed to be followed by TNA Reaction, this was the episode, because TNA had some great follow-up to the match in their Before the Bell video put online today getting reactions from a "lusting after the gold because I deserve it" Robert Roode and a "stunned & PO'ed Cowboy" James Storm. You're right that the camerawork was solid at the end showing Roode eying that beer bottle, which helped overcome some of the typical eye-rolling stuff with referee incompetence and a silly finish. I'm still against the idea of a straight-up Roode-Storm feud just a few weeks removed from BFG, though. I'm more confident in TNA than, say, three months ago to pull this off, but I disagree, in principle, with the decision. For what they tried on Thursday, I thought they pulled it off well.

Parks: I'd agree. I wish they, and WWE, would be a bit more judicious in their pacing, but I guess that's beating a dead horse at this point. We got more Garrett and Eric Bischoff, with yet another in-ring confrontation. TNA seems like they really want to push this feud, even though I don't think people really care about it at all. What do you make of this intra-family feud?

Caldwell: I think TNA is looking to tap into some of those "pawn/collector/hunt-for-treasure" cable shows where there's some sort of family rivalry and big personalities involved. Bischoff, having the big personality on TV, fits in the role. The problem is TNA hasn't provided enough on Garrett to make people care about his character, and, ultimately, because this is pro wrestling, it's giving TV time to characters that can't settle their differences in the ring. TNA could introduce surrogates to wrestle on behalf of them, but it would be dragging other wrestlers into a feud they don't need to be part of. I think it's a way for Bischoff to keep himself on TV and create some "non-wrestling" content in an era where a lot of TV wrestling has nothing to do with settling an issue between the ropes. How do you think this is eventually resolved?

Parks: I'd assume Garrett beats Eric (or a stand-in) in a match, but I'm wondering if Garrett's long-term future is truly as a wrestler? Is that where this storyline is going?

Caldwell: It seems like it. It almost feels like that storyline with the referee who suddenly turned into a wrestler (feuded with Booker T, I believe), but he had a lot of wrestling experience, unlike Garrett, who is still training. I'm sure the desired goal is Garrett as a semi-regular wrestler, but that remains to be seen on whether the objective will be successful. What else jumped out at you from Impact? It seemed like a lot of relatively important things happened, but none were more important than anything else on the show except for the main event title switch.

Parks: Who is: Shane Sewell. I'll take "wrestling referees" for 500 James. Uh, anyway....nothing else really jumped out. They're keeping Sting's role minimal, which is smart. The X Division got their usual one segment and there are new KO tag champs, but that division has gone to pot. I'm hoping Gail Kim can infuse some life into the division, but I don't see that happening if she's stuck as Karen Jarrett's sidekick.

Caldwell: There it is, Shane Sewell. It seems like TNA was just looking for a logical way to re-introduce Gail on TV and the best option was siding with Karen, but I see Gail eventually breaking out on her own because she's a strong-enough character to where she doesn't need anyone else besides herself. I agree she won't be able to infuse life into the division if she remains in a secondary role. And then you have the X Division, where Kid Kash wants to stick a knife in someone. Ugh.

Parks: Yeah, that was a little much. I actually thought, based on his commentary, that Kash was playing a real-life Bob Holly character. And we know so little about Jesse Sorensen, it's hard to get invested in him.

Caldwell: I'm apparently in the mood for some TNA Reaction, as it would be helpful if TNA profiled Sorensen in one of those "Reaction profile interviews" they would run weekly on the show. But, that would require an additional TV time investment that I'm not sure TNA is ready to make right now. Greg, this is usually the part of the Chat where we tackle Smackdown, but we covered last week's show in last week's Chat. There didn't seem to be as much involvement by Smackdown on this week's Raw with the Muppets taking up a lot of TV time, but one thing that jumps out at me is the current focus on Wade Barrett and his attempted re-push. Buy, Sell, or Wait & See?

Parks: I'll cautiously buy it. I think WWE could use a well-built mid-carder like Barrett, even if not immediately, then down the line. It doesn't hurt to give him some quality wins now. They've given him some inset interviews and have even given a name to his comeback, so that tells me they have some kind of plans for him.

Caldwell: I'm with you on cautiously buying it, but I'm just not sure the audience is ready to buy it because of so many unfulfilled promises by his character since the downfall of Nexus. A very consistent approach to Barrett's character, rather than wild ups & downs, would be helpful to rebuild his credibility with the audience. It's also interesting to me that he seems to be better off in groups than by himself. When he can lead people, he seems to take on a certain air of authority that makes him credible, but when he's by himself, he seems to be just another loud, mid-card heel. One person who stands out alone is Brodus Clay, who is returning next week. (How's that for a segue?) What do you expect from Clay back on Raw?

Parks: I expect he'll get a pretty nice push at first, squashing jobbers and lower card guys. I think we'll see how WWE feels about him if he gets quickly attached to a bigger star (like he was with ADR) or if they just keep having him go over lesser opponents 'til they find something for him.

Caldwell: Which reminds me that Mason Ryan was nowhere to be found this week on Raw. WWE seemed to have something going with Ryan feuding with Ziggler, et al, but when the booking of the mid-card is up-and-down, you're right that it could affect Brodus Clay if WWE doesn't attach him to something. Greg, back on the Smackdown brand, anything else you feel is worth covering?

Parks: I think I got all that out of my system last week.

Caldwell: Excellent. Should be an interesting show tonight that we'll cover next week. Greg, any other wrestling thoughts on your mind today?

Parks: Not really, so I'll plug Gonzo & The Greg for this week: The Top Five wrestlers in history who outperformed their potential; it's kind of the opposite of two weeks ago when we listed guys who we felt never reached their potential. This week, we'll take a look at guys we didn't see much of a future in, but came in and won a few titles or lasted a long time in the business.

Caldwell: And it's not the John Laurinaitis category some might be thinking of. I'll be looking forward to the discussion this weekend! Greg, enjoy the weekend and we'll talk next week.

Parks: You too, James! Thanks!

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!