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 Chat sponsored by Hair Club for undertakers. Greg, I think we should start on that note - Undertaker's return on Raw. Right here in this Chat last week, we talked about whether Taker would return on Raw by interrupting Triple H's "performance evaluation," thereby saving Laurinaitis's job (but not after massive embarrassment and humiliation), and plant seeds for Taker-Hunter at WM28. It was one of many theories we tossed around last week, but did it feel like Taker came back too soon, or was it fine and it got you intrigued for how they would follow through?

Greg Parks: James, don't sell yourself short - that was YOUR idea that ended up coming to fruition, so congrats on nailing that one. I thought Taker's return was well-done, even taking to account what seemed to be a wig. I'm intrigued not necessarily to see Taker return once again, but how they set it up, with Hunter sort-of backing down from his big words a month or two ago when he said he all but chased Taker out of the company after last year's Mania. It makes Hunter look vulnerable or weak, something we're not used to seeing from him.

Caldwell: It makes me wonder if Hunter will play the heel role - not necessarily "turn heel" in a WWE-style hit-you-over-the-head-with-it kind of a way - but after dogging Taker in that promo during the Nash feud and then brushing aside Taker when Taker came back to meet him face-to-face, is it setting up Hunter to be the heel at WM28? And, how do you think WWE will "restore" some of Taker's vulnerability, or will they keep Taker vulnerable to make it seem like someone really, actually, perhaps has a chance to break The Streak?

Parks: Part of me thinks they'll keep him strong because he is getting older and slower in the ring, so they would need to keep him strong for people to think he can really, believably, win at WM. But part of me thinks they need to make him look weak too, because he has the streak on his side and as years go by, it becomes more and more difficult for people to buy into him possibly losing. As for Hunter, he may be the heel in the "everything is stacked in his favor" sense, especially if they make HBK the special ref, as has been speculated.

Caldwell: Assuming Michaels does get involved in the storyline or special ref, I think they would be back to where they were at WM27 - does Michaels want Hunter to win and be the one to break The Streak (potentially causing jealously, but also being happy for his best friend), or does he want Taker to win to make sure "if I can't do it, then no one can do it?" Which makes me think they would have to throw in Hunter's career on the line to sweeten the pot even more and lead to even more inner conflict for Michaels since his best friend's career could be over. So, I think there are a lot of ways for this to go, especially if Michaels is involved. As for the Big Question regarding Taker, what do you think is the storyline explanation for why Taker would even want the re-match since he beat Hunter? Is it simply to disprove Hunter's boastful claims after their match?

Parks: It could be something that simple; normally, it's the challenger who calls out Taker, but this year, it seems to be the opposite. I just hope it doesn't come down to both men talking about how great the other is in promos and putting down everyone else, like it ended up at times last year. It's fine if they play the respect card, but don't push it.

Caldwell: Oh, Greg, I forgot about those bad memories! We can trace the decline of WWE's top titles further back than WM27 hype season, but that was a contributor to where WWE is right now. Again, assuming Taker-Hunter is the destination, is that the set-in-stone "semi-main-event-level" match behind Rock-Cena or could the assumed Jericho-Punk title match get co-top billing?

Parks: I'll probably be Taker-Hunter. I don't see Punk or Jericho (or whoever will be in the World Title match) getting hype the level of Taker vs. Triple H, especially if WWE isn't sure whether or not Taker will be back to defend his streak next year - if there's a chance this will be his last one (and I believe there's at least a chance), I think WWE will try to hype it even more to get every drop out of Taker hype before he hangs 'em up.

Caldwell: Agreed there. As for Punk-Jericho chapter one, we don't know much about the back-story yet since Jericho isn't talking, but what did you think of the set-up and the announcers stressing there is no pre-existing issue between them?

Parks: The only thing they have in common right now is Punk claiming to be Best in the World, which was the moniker that Jericho used to use. They were really heavy on Punk using that phrase this past week, likely to hammer that idea home. I think it would be cool for Jericho to once again play a video package (like the one that chronicled his career when hosting the Highlight Reel), a compilation of him calling himself the Best in the World, and then one shot at the end of Punk calling himself the same thing. Then Jericho could get one of those "I'm angry/pissed off" faces to the camera and boom, there's your feud.

Caldwell: It definitely feels like that's the way they're going. I think we have to introduce the Chamber PPV into the timeline of when that would occur. Is it something Jericho should introduce before the PPV when Punk, Jericho, and four other men are in the same match, or let the Punk-Jericho issue be mysterious for a few weeks, have the issue escalate in the Chamber match, and then Jericho busts out the video package explaining why he's upset with Punk?

Parks: I think you've got to do it before the Chamber. That's an awful long time to let this situation linger (leading up to the Chamber) and a short time for the feud to really be able to build to 'Mania (that being after the Chamber). I can't help but think about all the mic work and exchanges we'd be missing out if we were to wait for it to be fully explained, too!

Caldwell: I say this having only seeing chapter one and not the full picture of where this is going, but could it be that Jericho doesn't want a situation like the build-up to Jericho vs. Edge two years ago where they ran out of things to do/say and it just became about the Spear...Spear!...Spear!!!? I'm also afraid of Punk running out of things to say on the mic, so WWE will resort to the usual cut-down-your-opponent routine with Punk mocking Jericho's band and hair or something.

Parks: Yeah, I think if this were any two other people, I'd be worried about that too, but with Punk and Jericho, I think they'd have enough of their own fingerprints on the feud that I don't know how much WWE could muck it up. I'd like to think they'd be allowed some creative freedom to get to 'Mania. I understand what you're saying though: You have to balance the idea that WWE can't really pull off long-term storylines anymore without it stagnating within weeks, versus the idea that 'Mania feuds should be ones that have been built up over time and not something that just crops up overnight as if guys are fighting at any old PPV.

Caldwell: That touches on issues with the Royal Rumble build-up - it's like if WWE has more than three weeks of TV to build to the next PPV, they don't know what to do with themselves and end up hyping the PPV at the last-minute anyways, like they do when the PPVs come rapid-fire. Obviously, Mania is a different story all together since it's the end-all, be--all revenue driver for the entire year, so it will be interesting to see if, like you suggested, Jericho and Punk can "rise above" WWE's bad habits. Speaking of "rising above," (segue!) what did you think of the two John Cena issues in-play this week - initial hard sell for Cena-Rock and the continuation of the Cena-Kane feud?

Parks: The Cena-Kane stuff seemed like more of the same; nothing different but nothing really accomplished to move things forward, either, unless we're to assume Cena has embraced the hate - but then what of his smiling in the middle of the ring after vanquishing Kane? And, has Eve forgiven him now? I expect, as each week passes, the focus shifts more and more to Rock vs. Cena, depending of course on how often Rock appears on TV.

Caldwell: I think the unfortunate byproduct of Cena-Rock looming and WWE diving deeper into the Cena-Kane issue is that some of these secondary issues may never be resolved or addressed, such as whether Eve has forgiven Cena or what Cena thinks of her blaming him for Ryder's injuries. Perhaps when Ryder returns to TV, the issue will be addressed, but who knows in the land of NXT Higher Powers and Mystery GMs. But, one thing that I made a mental note of during Raw to ask you specifically in the Chat, Greg, is why Kane seems interested in the outcome of Cena-Rock at Mania. Why would Kane care about that match-up, as he suggested in his Titantron promo?

Parks: That's a question I had during his promo too: "What's in it for him?" I don't know that will ever be revealed, because this story seems to be much more about what's going on in Cena's head and his psyche than Kane's. He's just the medium of which WWE's ideas are flowing through right now.

Caldwell: Yeah, it's another one of those "maybe it will be answered or maybe it will never be answered" type developments. As for Cena virtually destroying Kane before Kane ran away to the concourse, did you have a problem with how Kane was portrayed there, or, does it not even matter since Kane isn't in a position to draw money with Cena since the big money is Cena-Rock?

Parks: I don't have a big problem with it for the reason you stated. I wonder where Kane will fit on the WrestleMania card, since I don't know that he really has time to get involved in anything else after this Cena stuff. They could always throw him in MITB, but there are so many other guys who are deserving of that spot, too. It's hard to imagine them leaving him off, especially since it wasn't that long ago when he returned to Raw with a new look and a lot of fanfare.

Caldwell: As you wrote about in your Newsletter column and as we talked about on the Livecast yesterday, it is difficult to see where some of the non-WM-main-eventers will fit on the line-up. Kane might just end up in the MITB match to be a base for the high-flying wrestlers. But, you're right that it would be difficult for him to be left off the card since he's been an integral part of the Cena-Rock build-up. Elsewhere, Greg, I think we've avoided the Big Question, the Big Elephant in the Room, the question everyone wants answered from Raw...does John Laurinaitis still have a job or is he "fired?"

Parks: Yeah....uh, it must be one of those "only in wrestling" things where the only way a guy can be fired is on national television.

Caldwell: Very true. I assume Laurinaitis stays on as Raw GM while Hunter "occupies himself" with Taker, so it looks like Laurinaitis is safe for now. Greg, elsewhere on Raw, one good, one really good, and one great match in the ring. I can't recall a recent Raw with that much high-quality wrestling action in one show. Your thoughts on WWE bringing it strong in the ring on Monday?

Parks: That really helped make Raw a solid show in my eyes. I think to make a really good show, you've got to have a combination of strong mic work, storyline establishment and advancement in a way that is believable and makes sense, and hot in-ring action. I think, for the most part, Raw hit on all of those on Monday night.

Caldwell: Agreed there. Greg, anything else from Raw worth breaking down?

Parks: I think we can move on. Before hitting up Smackdown, let's break up the WWE talk with Impact from last night. It's amazing how the atmosphere can change a show. I didn't think Impact was any better than any recent show quality-wise, but it did "feel" like a big show and the crowd and set-up helped get across that TNA is major-league. Did you see the atmosphere contribute to a better show?

Caldwell: No doubt about it. It's something WWE really doesn't take advantage of when they travel to the U.K. because they essentially pick up the entire production, plop it down in London, add a phone booth and a car, and just call it another Raw. Granted, WWE plays arena shows every week and it's going to be a much starker contrast for TNA going from the sterile Impact Zone to a hot arena, but I thought TNA really captured the environment better than WWE does overseas.

Parks: Wait, they were in England? I didn't see any phone booths or cars by the entranceway, and I've learned that's how to tell your show is in that country!

Caldwell: I know, right? Yeah, it's WWE playing to that lowest common denominator that I felt TNA really did a good job of not doing, but also making sure the area was represented well. One thing that I have to bring up from the show that is stuck in my mind is the absolutely mind-numbing, unproductive promo by Hulk Hogan backstage that I felt set TNA back a few years ago. This talk of "getting to the next level" and "being the driving force for TNA" should never be talked about on the show; TNA just needs to do their thing and have an implied sense of "this is major leagues" without having to talk about it. I just couldn't get over that promo.

Parks: It's like, "okay Hulk, you've been with the company for over two years now, why haven't you brought it to that next level yet? And if you haven't yet, why should I have confidence that you're actually going to do it?" But ultimately you're right, I don't really "get" how that fits into the storyline of him training Garret, which should've been what that promo was about.

Caldwell: It's like Hogan slipped back into doing a mainstream media interview, but, yet, TNA kept that promo in the show in post-production. It felt like another one of those promos aimed strictly for Dixie Carter's ears that Hogan and Bischoff throw out every once in a while. And, you touched on the storyline item of Hogan being revealed as Garett Bischoff's trainer. What did you think of that reveal and the crowd's response to Garett?

Parks: From reports, it sounds like TNA had to add in a pop for Garret in post-production. I think they could've accomplished the same thing in one segment rather than two, but Hogan being revealed as Garett's trainer made sense as far as the storyline, which I'm assuming leads to Bischoff vs. Bischoff. Unfortunately for TNA, the only people who really want to see that also have the last name "Bischoff."

Caldwell: And, Hogan being a smart man who employs juxtaposition quite well for personal gain, had to know that Garett would be booed out of the building since he's way over-pushed and the U.K. crowd would crap on Garett, which would then make Hogan's pop and reaction even greater when he came out for the trainer reveal. Which, in turn, would make it seem like the crowd was red-hot for this storyline and convince TNA higher-ups that the crowd is ready for a Bischoff-Bischoff or Bischoff-Hogan vs. Bischoff type match-up. Whereas, in actuality, as you pointed out, the crowd has no interest in that match-up. Lots of gamesmanship. As for the actual wrestlers on the roster, what did you think of James Storm pulling double-duty and the four-way World Title match set up?

Parks: He did a nice job in each match, but it wasn't on the level of Bryan vs. Punk (nor would it have been expected to be) or anything like that. I don't care for giving away Roode vs. Storm again with little build-up, and the constant non-clean finishes...I mean, Sting has to do something about Ray getting involved in these matches, right?

Caldwell: I thought the cricket paddle was meant to do the trick?! You're right about Sting seemingly a bit lax in his enforcement of rules. I would be in favor of a more consistent approach there. I'm with you on not being in favor of giving away Roode-Storm again. I've read some opinions that it actually made people want to see the full Roode-Storm match down the road, though. How do you see that?

Parks: I could buy that, but I really think it would've been better to hold off the first match until you can absolutely get the most out of it, financially speaking, such as at a PPV. When you give it away for free, you tell people that the match isn't a big deal, so later when you try to sell it as a main event of a PPV, the viewers set there and think, "why should I pay when they gave it to me, with no hype, and for free?"

Caldwell: There's definitely a fine line to walk there - giving away a match-up for free and then expecting people to pay for it later or can we still give away the match-up, but not all of it, and hope people will pay for it later? That's tough. Greg, what else stood out to you from Impact besides Mark Haskins nearly breaking his neck?

Parks: Yeah, hey, Haskins left it all in the ring, you gotta give him that. I thought it was interesting the crowd reactions - Aries and Joe getting cheered, Morgan and Crimson getting booed, chanting "Devon" at Bully Ray despite them not having anything to do with each other for the last few months. It was interesting to say the least.

Caldwell: It made it seem like the majority of the crowd was not quite up-to-speed on the latest TNA developments, plus I think there was the nostalgia factor - Team 3D/Dudleys with Ray and Devon and Samoa Joe being a big deal to hardcore/int'l fans a few years ago - and the audience doesn't really know who Crimson is and Austin Aries is one of the greatest men who has ever lived. So, getting these guys in front of an audience that isn't fully up-to-speed on the current product, but knows guys from years past created a very interesting dynamic.

Parks: It was like a house show crowd in that way, I'd say.

Caldwell: That's very true. As for hyping this PPV, do you think they've done a better job than usual, worse job than usual, or just a "TNA job," as usual?

Parks: TNA job for the most part - they already seem to be looking toward Lockdown, which I guess is at least a good sign for that show - not so much for Against All Odds.

Caldwell: Speaking of "against all odds," ... hm... I don't have a segue to Smackdown there. But, Greg, let's jump to Smackdown, which you'll be covering tonight. What did you think of Smackdown's night at the Rumble and brief follow-up on Raw?

Parks: There wasn't a whole lot to it. Sheamus, after winning the Rumble, got some brief mic time, but didn't really have anything to say - it was almost like they needed to get him on the show and had no other way to do it on the rest of the show. I'm more interested to see if they stick with the Bryan-Show-Henry story, or if they move somewhere else heading into the Chamber and where Sheamus fits in.

Caldwell: It seems like Henry will be pushed out of that story, at least temporarily, due to his lingering injuries, which would allow the focus to stay on Bryan-Show, which seems to clicking right now. Bryan has really come into his own in this heel champion role, so I'm in favor of it continuing. Greg, we'll talk more about the Chamber match participants next week after they officially announce the line-up on Smackdown tonight, but, do you think Bryan-Sheamus is the best option to spotlight the Smackdown brand going into Mania, or should someone else be in Bryan's position facing Sheamus?

Parks: Right now, Bryan vs. Sheamus works best for me. You could make an argument for Show, or Henry if he's healthy, or Orton or someone like that. But Bryan still holding the title will make it mean more if Sheamus takes it at 'Mania.

Caldwell: And, it sounds like Sheamus really wants that match based on his interview with Sky Sports about being disappointed their match was booted from WM27 last year. If given 15 minutes at WM28, like Bryan-Punk was given on Raw, I think they could do something special on the big stage. Elsewhere on Smackdown, Greg, did you get a sense anyone on the Smackdown brand had a stand-out night in the Rumble match besides Sheamus (winner) and Randy Orton (Final Four in his hometown)?

Parks: No, but that's another reason I didn't like the Rumble match. I felt like no one besides the winner really had a chance to stand out, even guys like Miz and Cody who lasted a long time. I'm sure they'll talk up how long some lasted tonight, but unfortunately, I couldn't even tell where they were going with some of the guys as far as setting up or continuing feuds during the Rumble match.

Caldwell: The only thing I could see would be Cody Rhodes eliminating virtually all of the "Legends" in the match, but the announcers didn't do enough to stress that during the Rumble (probably because they were eliminated by Rhodes, which calls into question their journalistic integrity!). Like you said, it will be interesting to see if Cody makes a big deal about that on Smackdown. As for Orton, he had the Final Four showing, but it felt like his focus was on Wade Barrett, not winning the Rumble, so I thought that hurt the match a bit. Tonight's Smackdown has another round of Barrett vs. Orton, though. Could this continue to Mania or will it be wrapped up by Chamber time?

Parks: I think it could happen at 'Mania. Relating to Wade Barrett, I was most disappointed that his Twitter promise of Papa Shango being in the Rumble was not true...for the second year in a row.

Caldwell: Papa Shango (a/k/a Godfather) did win the Legends Battle Royal at the PWS WrestleReunion show in Los Angeles the night before, so, perhaps Barrett was speaking prophetically in a different way! As he has noted in a variety of ways, he is of a higher knowledge and mentality than mere Twitter tweeters. Greg, anything else you're looking forward to seeing on tonight's Smackdown that may or may not be flatulence-related?

Parks: Ugh, I was hoping we'd be able to avoid a mention of that! That is one I'm certainly NOT looking foward to this evening.

Caldwell: I was going to avoid it, but I felt the chance to contrast Barrett's sophistication and class with WWE's childish and sophomoric writing was too good to pass...up. Anyways, before we lose all credibility, how about a plug for Gonzo & The Greg this weekend?

Parks: We'll be recording tomorrow our top five favorite celebrity moments in pro wrestling. Lots of good and bad to sift through there...I'm sure Robocop will not be appearing.

Caldwell: Ah, darn. Not even Popeye from the original Impact on FSN episodes in 2004?

Parks: I don't even remember that. So no.

Caldwell: I'll never forget the green laser light from a scrapped '90s Nickelodeon game show...and Popeye. All right, Greg, always good chatting with you. Have a great weekend and we will talk next week!

Parks: And, you have a great weekend too, 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!