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 TV wrestling discussion. Greg, let's start off with a laborious three-hour Raw on Monday leading to Sunday's TLC PPV. There were several talking points coming from this show, but I want to start with one that hasn't been talked about much (and I don't think was even brought up on the Livecast yesterday) and that was John Cena's latest passive-aggressive dig at The Rock by taunting the audience with an appearance by Rock. What did you make of that "promo" by Cena, and was the Rock tease too heelish for Cena, even as WWE continues to make Cena seem a little more edgy than before?

Greg Parks: I don't think it was too heelish for him. With The Rock not there, WWE can't just ignore that fact; it would be a little silly not to point it out. I thought it was a little amusing myself. There has to be some kind of issue between these two guys heading into 'Mania; nobody's going to be too excited over another "I respect you" match, and it's not like WWE and Cena are taking personal digs at Rock. If all they can come up with are, "oh, he's not here again!," then it doesn't hurt Rock much at all. People will forget that he hasn't been around much as soon as he starts talking on the mic again.

Caldwell: At the same time, do you think the tear-downs can add up over time to where it creates less excitement for their eventual encounter? Or, will the excitement be there as soon as Rock returns, does something great again, and everyone forgets about the constant jabs from Cena, as well as Punk, albeit in a less-visible setting in online interviews? Right now, I just get this sense the constant "he's not here" lines are starting to wear on the audience, yet, at the same time, the crowd exploded when Cena teased an appearance from Rock. So, it's interesting to gauge this build-up four-and-a-half-months before Rock vs. Cena at WM28.

Parks: I think it'd be nice if there was an issue between Cena and Rock that went further than "I'm here, he's not," which is all it seems to be at this point, as you hinted at. I don't know that the crowd will burn out on that, per se. I think for a lot of people, no matter how the build-up continues to go, once Rock and Cena are on that big stage at WrestleMania, at that moment, all of the lackluster build-up, if it continues, will have been forgotten. For that moment, at least.

Caldwell: Right. I can definitely picture Rock coming back at the end of February or beginning of March and cutting that memorable promo again to erase any ill-feelings about the build-up to get people excited, even if they're not excited right now. As for Cena's new mini-program, Greg, what did you make of Kane's return complete with mask and what do you think the explanation will be (if there is one!) for Kane targeting Cena?

Parks: I like the mask and the new look for now. He had really grown stale with his previous look and role. I think the explanation for the attack could be as simple as Kane wanting to make a mark upon his return. The great thing about that character, from a writer's point of view, is he's billed as being crazy, so his reasoning for doing ANYTHING doesn't really have to make sense. Kane has gone back-and-forth with his babyface character, and then turning back heel using the reasoning that he became too soft, so that could be the case here as well. James, Mark Henry took Kane out of action; are you a little surprised he didn't go after Henry during that attack, and is WWE just going to ignore Henry putting Kane on the shelf for now to go with Kane vs. Cena, or will that be addressed?

Caldwell: I've gone back and forth on that trying to look ahead to the follow-up. I could see an explanation that Kane was looking to target Henry (thereby acknowledging the write-off), but Henry rolled out of the ring, so Kane switched his target to Cena. Plus, from a booking standpoint, I'm sure WWE didn't want to shift the focus to Kane-Henry when the Smackdown main event at TLC on Sunday is Kane-Big Show, so they had Kane target Cena instead. But, I could see something where Kane targets both heels and faces on his rampage. The problem is it could send mixed signals to the audience, which WWE also probably does not want to do for a returning character. I don't know. When do you think Cena addresses the issue - at TLC on Sunday or Raw on Monday...or just no-sells it and goes about his day?

Parks: The way Kane's return was positioned, it was treated as a big deal, so I don't think Cena just shrugs it off. Whether he addresses it on Sunday or on Monday I'm not so sure. He'll be on the PPV in some form or fashion but I'm with Kane added to the mix, Cena could cut a promo on him (though that would it feel a bit too much like Raw). With the Kane situation added to the mix, do you think Cena's role at the PPV is any clearer, and do you think he ends up wrestling or just showing up in another capacity?

Caldwell: It seems highly unlikely WWE would go an entire PPV without Cena in the mix after he main-evented 11 out of 12 PPVs this year, but I don't think they should just throw him in a random match. I also don't see him being added to the WWE Title match at the last second, especially after there was no hint of him being anywhere near the title picture on Raw. So, I'm leaning toward a promo or backstage interview, but I think they have to be careful protecting Cena as a special attraction - not an add-on - leading up to WM28. If they built up something throughout the PPV like "we're going to hear from Cena responding to Kane later in the show," then it could work, but they're almost better off keeping him completely off the PPV... Speaking of less is more, Greg, Triple H cut a promo on Taker, Nash, and pretty much everyone else on Raw. I said in last week's Chat I was in favor of Hunter re-emerging to show he's healthy before facing Nash at TLC, but I said no to a promo. Instead, Hunter had promo time. What did you make of his promo, the final build to Hunter-Nash, and cutting a promo on Taker?

Parks: James, you were right on: He shouldn't have done a promo, because it wasn't really that good. His attack at Taker seemed to come out of nowhere and exist for the sole purpose of laying the foundation for a WrestleMania re-match. When he finally did get around to his match at TLC against Nash, he didn't really have much to say there aside from a few empty cliched phrases. Nash and Hunter are friends, which should make it easier to have a good match than if Nash was paired up against pretty much any other worker.

Caldwell: Their last encounter was a 21-minute Hell in a Cell match with Mick Foley as special referee more than eight years ago, which we posted the Flashback on today. What are reasonable expectations for this match? And, potentially more importantly, where do you see this match slotted on the PPV? You would think after this much time spent on the feud that it's main event material, but you're right on that Hunter didn't seem to have much to say about the feud. I think it points to WWE missing their window to make this match seem special on PPV.

Parks: I could see it being near the top, perhaps a buffer between the title matches. My expectations are pretty simple: It'll be a walk-and-brawl with little of the constant "one guy climbs slowly, the other guy knocks him off" ladder match norms that we're accustomed to.

Caldwell: I could see WWE putting it mid-way through the PPV so expectations aren't too high, and so it doesn't take the audience completely out of the rest of the PPV if it's a brawl through the stands. But, I'm going with your call of semi-main-eventish due to it being a Hunter match and the likely blow-off to a four-or-five month program between Nash and Hunter. I think it's safe to assume Hunter wins this to build to WM28, presumably vs. Taker, so what does the future hold for Nash? Off TV for a while? Take some time off, then bring back the NWO? Something else?

Parks: That's a really good question. I too feel like it's a blow-off, but then again, if the match comes off well and the crowd responds, WWE could stick with it a few more months. I certainly don't think Nash has been on TV often enough to be overexposed as he was on TNA, but I don't really know where he'd go after Hunter. If they kept the feud going another month or two, all of a sudden it bridges the gap to Hunter vs. Taker and Nash vs. an opponent if he has a WM match, rather than having to find bridge opponents for those guys to get to WM.

Caldwell: Ah, good point there. After posing the question, I was thinking of how they could bridge the gap from TLC to WM28 for Hunter. Extending the Nash feud to the real blow-off perhaps at Elimination Chamber could work for Hunter. If they don't, I don't think it would be in Hunter's best interest to return to the authority figure calamity, and it seemed like they're moving away from that considering Hunter returned on Raw looking like Triple H, the wrestler, rather than Triple H, the authority figure. No more walk-outs and promo exchanges with Laurinaitis, please! Cue up the next segue...what were thoughts on Punk's 1980s retrospective video on Ace and the WWE Title match build? I thought the video was a bit too cute for the Raw before a PPV, but the heels put a beat down on Punk to stack the deck and seem like threats (even though we know they aren't) to shift focus to the title match. I would have preferred a follow-up babyface promo from Punk to show he's all-business leading to TLC, but WWE rarely does that. So, your thoughts on the title picture and Punk leading to TLC?

Parks: I liked the heel beat-down, and I liked the video on Johnny Ace. It was a moment where I just sat back and enjoyed some actually well-done humor by WWE, a rarity, rather than try an analyze what it meant or what could've been done instead. I'll take the win of it being funny and just move on from there. Even with the beat-down, I don't know that anyone thinks ADR or Miz have a real shot at beating Punk, but maybe WWE's betting on Punk's fans tuning in just to see him rather than see him in peril, as is the traditional babyface role.

Caldwell: Good points. I pose the following question with the side note that it's typically difficult to isolate one or two things that sells a PPV (except for this year's MITB PPV) because the "WWE brand" is typically the selling point. But, if you remove Cena from the PPV and Punk is in the main event, Hunter-Nash is supposed to appeal to a broader audience, and Ryder has a PPV match, how do you think this will all balance out in terms of PPV buys? Will we find out anything about Cena as a PPV draw with him removed from the equation?

Parks: I certainly think you could. Remember, not only has Cena not been advertised in a match, he hasn't been advertised for the show at all. It'd be one thing if fans thought, "well, they said Cena will be in Ryder's corner, so I'll order the show and I'll at least get to see him." But that isn't the case here, as they've advertised him for nothing. I don't know if this is WWE's idea of a "social experiment" but not putting him on the card and seeing what the buyrate will be off that, but it is a curious decision to leave off the number one drawing card at a time when PPVs numbers are falling to alarming levels.

Caldwell: It certainly feels like an experiment, as you said. It will be really interesting to see what the numbers look like on Sunday. And anything to do with numbers gets me excited! Greg, anything else on Raw worth breaking down before we look at the Smackdown side leading into TLC?

Parks: Let's move on to Smackdown. Last week featured Randy Orton beating Wade Barrett's Beat the Clock time, and Orton chose a Tables Match for their contest at TLC. But on the side of the Barrett vs. Orton feud was Dolph Ziggler, who Orton went over, and then took out post-match as well. Are you concerned at how they portrayed Ziggler on this show, or did you think it was okay because he still fought Orton tooth-and-nail and was just used to get more heat on the Barrett vs. Orton feud?

Caldwell: Yeah, I would have preferred someone else take that table spot, but at the same time, I feel like Ziggler is so good at what he's doing right now that he could take that bump and still get over. I almost feel like he's the heel version of a Teflon babyface. But, at the same time, it didn't get him closer to breaking through to a permanent main event heel spot like Miz or Del Rio or Henry. So, I think for where he is right now - as the tippy top mid-card heel - I was fine with it. I think what's interesting to me about Smackdown right now, Greg, is that we typically sit here a few days before a WWE PPV with one, maybe two SD PPV matches to discuss. There are actually three relevant PPV matches with Henry-Show, Rhodes-Booker, and Orton-Barrett. Do you think it was a conscious effort to give SD more important matches to work with or just coincidental timing with three good feuds right now?

Parks: It could've been a conscious decision with WWE seeing the Smackdown ratings staying strong and even improving in light of Raw's ratings on the downturn. I wouldn't rule out it just being a coincidence though, because with Raw ratings down, you'd think they'd want to pack the PPV with matches from the red brand to try to ignite interest in the show.

Caldwell: What's interesting about that is it seems like Raw has been using Smackdown's top feuds to fill the PPV hype, thereby promoting SD's PPV matches. Orton-Barrett has been heavily featured on Raw as of late, and Henry-Show has been given TV time. It's almost like Raw writers found themselves at a dead-end after all of the authority figure non-sense and changes to the top storyline with Hunter, Nash, Punk, Laurinaitis, Del Rio, Cena, etc., that they needed Smackdown's well-developed feuds. Smackdown even has Sheamus sitting on the sidelines with no PPV match, and he's been strongly featured on Raw as of late. I think it's interesting how it flipped, with SD's consistent ratings probably being a factor, as well, like you mentioned. Looking at Smackdown's Big Three - what's your match outcome prediction for Henry-Show, Rhodes-Booker, and Orton-Barrett?

Parks: I see Henry going over Show; time to move on from that feud, but I will say that they got more mileage out of this than I expected. Rhodes retains against Booker; whether he wins or not I'm not completely sure because I could see him retaining by DQ. This reeks of a short-term feud, but who knows with WWE sometimes. And Orton vs. Barrett is a tough one, where I could see either guy winning and allowing the other to claim that while he lost, he didn't get pinned or submit. So I'll go with Orton on that one, though that's a prediction that I've been waffling on.

Caldwell: No problem with waffling when it comes to WWE because I'm sure the finishes will change five times before Sunday night. I see Booker-Rhodes as a DQ finish and an experiment to see how the match comes across and what the crowd response is. If it's good, then I definitely see a re-match, likely on TV. Overall, Greg, is this PPV line-up worth ordering or is it skippable?

Parks: I think it's pretty skippable, unless you like the violence that the TLC PPV brings. None of the matches have a lot of heat behind them, unfortunately, and many just seem "blah." James, back onto Smackdown, last week's show featured Michael Cole at his worst, but also the beginnings of a Daniel Bryan vs. Cody Rhodes feud. Where do you see that issue heading, bearing in mind that it seems Cody also recently began feuding with Booker, too?

Caldwell: I almost forgot about you going off on Heel Cole in your Smackdown report last week! Unfortunately, I see that staying the same as it has been with no end in sight. As for Rhodes-Bryan, I think it gives Bryan something to do to keep building to WM28 and I think it gives Rhodes something to do since Booker isn't full-time in the ring. I think they match up well against each other, so this gets a thumbs up.

Parks: Definitely. Anything else from Smackdown, James?

Caldwell: What's up with Kaitlyn & A.J.? I believe Kaitlyn turned on A.J. at last week's Smackdown taping, but it was edited off the show. Perhaps a slow-er burn to the heel turn or WWE having second thoughts about it? Also, no Divas Title match on TLC, as of now. I think WWE is stuck where they've booked Beth-Eve an Beth-Kelly enough times, but they're not ready for a Beth-A. Fox match, but I don't see anyone on Smackdown rising up. Can you make some sense out of the Divas division?

Parks: It's interesting because after being off-and-on PPVs for a while, WWE has gotten to where every month there's a Divas PPV match - except this month. So yeah, the division is in a bit of disarray. I don't like turning Kaitlyn on A.J. so soon, given that WWE hasn't really done as much with those two as I think they could, as there's an interesting dynamic between their characters being best friends. But no one has ever accused WWE of developing Divas characters TOO well.

Caldwell: It certainly has been a while. Like in the Trish Stratus-Lita days. Assuming there isn't a bonus/filler Divas Title match at TLC, who will Beth's next title defense be against?

Parks: I thought they've been grooming Alicia Fox for that role, as she's been interacting with the top face Divas in Kelly and Eve for some time, which I assume is to give Fox some credibilty and babyface heat. But they don't seem ready to pull the trigger on it for whatever reason.

Caldwell: Agreed. Greg, anything else Smackdown or WWE-related before we tackle TNA?

Parks: Let's go to TNA. The first thing that comes into my mind about that show was the Jeff and Karen Jarrett stuff. I thought it was really well-done and really funny, but not in a beat-you-over-the-head-with-it way. Did you get as much enjoyment out of the Jarretts as I did, or did it feel more like a waste of time?

Caldwell: Well, I'll say this first. TNA should have delivered either (preferably both) the Roode-Styles finish or the Jarrett Firing on the actual PPV on Sunday. Sometimes I wonder if TNA realizes people actually pay money for their monthly shows. That said, I thought the Jarrett segments played out well throughout the show leading to both getting their comeuppance. I didn't feel like it took much away from the show, which TNA has a tendency to do with these segments, and it was an effective write-off. Jarrett shouting "100 Jeff Jarretts?!" over and over again was a perfect fit for his character, so I thought everyone played their roles well. The other person in the equation was Sting. I feel like he's finally found his groove as an authority figure not worried about wrestling, but I also sense they're building to a Sting-Roode match. What do you think about Sting's role and, to the larger point concerning the World Title, Roode's performances as the lead heel?

Parks: Yeah, it certainly looks like Roode vs. Sting is the direction, but it also feels like that's a trigger they're not going to pull in the next month or anything; feels like the start of the build to a match that will pay off down the line. I think Sting is fine in his role, mostly because no one is fighting him for the power that he has, and he's simply in the Teddy Long role of being the leader who comes out and makes decisions when necessary. As for Roode's heel character, he's done well, but gosh, give the guy a clean win now and then. I get that he's a guy who takes shortcuts to win, but the trade-off in establishing that is he doesn't seem like a credible champion or wrestler.

Caldwell: That's such a problem all throughout wrestling. We've seen it over and over again in WWE and now with Roode. I don't know if it's a fear of "established star vs. enhancement wrestler" driving away TV viewers, rushed booking not wanting to establish the foundation of credibility before jumping right into Heel Champion Booking, or some other factors. But, yeah, I'm with you on that. I felt like, overall, Impact was a thumbs up show with the usual items to point out as being flaws, but I also felt like TNA threw out a lot of stuff to digest on that show. Yet, I didn't feel completely overwhelmed. It was weird. You look at Hardy now in the title picture, Styles on the outside-looking-in, Bully Ray suddenly back in the main event spotlight, Storm and Angle hovering somewhere, and Sting perhaps being built up for a match vs. Roode down the line, like you said. How does this all get sorted out?

Parks: Bully Ray really does belong back in the main event picture, so good to see that he's away from Steiner and that lower-card stuff. I wasn't thrilled with the tag tournament, either, as I'm not sure what the storyline reason would be for this Lethal Lottery-type tournament.

Caldwell: I think TNA has a bunch of guys with nothing to do, so they decided that, instead of developing new storylines and feuds, they would try the backwards method of starting a "strange bedfellows" tournament and see what clicks to begin new feuds. I was impressed with the Joe & Magnus pairing, though. I'll call them "Underutilized." I think Magnus is a future star and Joe has been wasted for so long that perhaps if they pull their resources together, they can do something. Of course, if they lose in the next round, they'll probably never be heard from again as a tag team. So, who knows.

Parks: Yeah, I suppose we should just be happy that Doug Williams and Magnus were doing something again. Finally.

Caldwell: Poor Douglas Williams. He can join "Underutilized," too. Greg, should we touch on the Devon-Pope developments since a full-length segment was devoted to it to this week?

Parks: That was another situation where nothing was advanced at the PPV, yet, the full turn happened the next week on Impact.

Caldwell: Yeah, it's that defeated mentality that less than one percent of the TV audience watches the PPVs, so why should they put the big developments on the pay show when more people will see it on the free show. Of course, when TNA does the minimum to hype the PPVs and often-times ends their PPVs on a flat note or with unsatisfying conclusions that are sorted out on TV, the audience is going to catch on. They really have to change the PPV model or their approach to PPVs. Greg, anything else TNA-related before we plug Gonzo & The Greg?

Parks: I think I'm good on TNA for this week. On Gonzo & The Greg, it's the top five best and worst promotional moves of 2011. We'll also, as usual, be giving our predictions for the upcoming PPV and discussing some current events in wrestling.

Caldwell: Excellent. We previewed that on yesterday's PWTorch Livecast, which we encourage our loyal Chat readers to also check out. Greg, we'll do it again Sunday night after TLC with a post-PPV Livecast, so I'm looking forward to that. Until then, have a great weekend!

Parks: Always a pleasure, 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!