James Caldwell: This is Torch assistant editor James Caldwell joined by Torch specialist Greg Parks talking Raw on Monday night and Smackdown from Friday night. Greg, we had a Raw show this week and I'm not quite sure how it made air, but it did. There were two high points: the six-man tag and Cena vs. Swagger. Everything else...yikes. What was your overall impression?

Greg Parks: Yeah, for the positives, I liked some of the matches that were put out there, and even the ones that were too short to like, at least they put some different players out there in the spotlight, which was nice. But that's about all I liked. The rest of it, you can't even say "it was just there." It was bad, I mean generally really bad. I did get a chuckle out of Sarge's "don't ask, don't tell" line, but other than that...ugh.

JC: It was such a weird show. There was the horrible kids-oriented humor and there was some actually good, decent wrestling and stars being positioned as stars. Swagger was re-elevated, Kofi was back in the spotlight, Sheamus was...um...shown on-camera 50 minutes into the show. Scratch the last item. I know WWE is aiming for kids and I know they're trying to appeal to a young demo, but this just played to such a low common denominator. It was assuredly insulting to a ten-year-old.

GP: Hard to say, but yeah, I at least felt really, REALLY lame watching this show, at least certain parts of it.

JC: It's embarrassing. It really is. It's not even one of those things where two people can sit there and watch the same thing and reasonably disagree on the quality of a segment here or a segment there. A running gag on midgets, treating human beings like they're animals or a pet, continually objectifying women, and reinforcing these thoughts to the kids audience is just embarrassing to sit through.

GP: It is, and if I were watching this with a non-wrestling fan, I'd certainly be embarrassed. Hell, I was embarrassed watching it with wrestling fans anyway. Don't forget to mention the woman with the golf club chasing the tiger either. That was stupid and served no purpose other than for WWE to try to prove they are relevant.

JC: Oh yes, I tried to block that out of my mind. I don't know what was worse: the skit or the roaring tiger/lion sound they played when the skit went down. Shane McKinley said it best they were three weeks late to the party on that one. Now three weeks later, the story has become a sad spectacle in the entertainment news and WWE was piling on. Let's talk about some of the other specifics from the show. Bret Hart. Another reference on the show with Vince McMahon selling he was upset. Where do you see this going?

GP: It's interesting, because I was thinking about that question after the show. It would have to be announced next week, unless they do the rare thing and not tell what guest host is hosting the next week, and with TNA going head to head that week, you can bet WWE would want to advertise Hart as much as possible. If in fact he is hosting the January 4 Raw, who gets him to do so, in the storyline? McMahon the character is clearly opposed to it, and it has never really been addressed WHO is the one in the storyline that reaches out to these guest hosts. I guess we'll find out next week.

JC: It's interesting WWE has used the guest hosts the past two weeks to re-introduce Hart's name into the storyline. It could be Timbaland uses his "executive powers" on next week's show to get Bret Hart to guest-host January 4. The storyline of who reaches out to the guest hosts is one of those unexplainable inconsistencies with the storyline. Of course, we did find out McMahon has been coaching the guest hosts on how to book each week's shows, though. I'm being facetious, but there's one storyline cleared up!

GP: I thought about Timbaland being the impetus for Hart's return, but that didn't make a whole lot of sense. Whoever got Hart to return would have a lot of heat with Vince in the storyline, since it sounds like he's going to be an on-air TV character with Hart leading up to WM, and it'd be dumb to burn the re-introduction of Hart through Timbaland.

JC: Well, we've arrived at an interesting point in that case. It could be DX since their storyline interaction with McMahon has been based on Hunter trying to make fun of McMahon. Perhaps Michaels "buries the hatchet" in the storylines and helps bring back Hart.

GP: Yeah, the weird thing is though, we haven't gotten a hint of any DX/McMahon issues the last few weeks that would force DX to bring this up....unless HBK finds the "Christmas Spirit" to bring Hart in, but then we're back to, "who hires the guest hosts in the first place?"

JC: You're right, we're back at square one! Who knows, maybe Chris Jericho booted from Raw plays into this. However they re-introduce Hart will most likely have holes in it. Let's talk Sheamus vs. Cena for the title next week. How do you see this playing out?

GP: Good question - either way, we'll certainly see if WWE is firmly behind Sheamus, or if they've cooled on him since winning the title. I have no reason to think that, but this is WWE we're talking about. His first win over Cena has been treated almost as a fluke in WWE-land, and Cena the last two weeks has seemed on his game and geared up to face Sheamus. I think Sheamus keeping the title is the way to go here, but do they put him over Cena strong or in fluky fashion again?

JC: You're right that we're going to find out a lot about where Sheamus stands in WWE's short-term booking. Sarcasm - Sheamus could just get himself DQ'ed in the first 25 seconds and eliminate Cena's re-match clause. Heck, he could have done that on Raw last night. End sarcasm. But, we know that's not happening. Looking at the info we have, Cena has been presented as a huge deal for two weeks. If WWE really wants to make Sheamus look strong, then he wins decisively after WWE built up SuperCena. That could be a major boost for Sheamus. Otherwise, they're building up Cena huge, Sheamus has his three weeks in the spotlight, and we're back to Cena vs. Orton going to the Rumble.

GP: Oh, dear God no!

JC: Yeah, I know! Let's look at two scenarios. Sheamus wins on Raw. Who does he face at the Rumble? If Cena wins, do they do Cena-Sheamus III at the Rumble or another match?

GP: Sheamus vs. Kofi at the Rumble! Hey, I can dream, can't I? I would say if Cena wins they do a third match between them, but then again, Sheamus could be sent back to the mid-card like Kofi was (though he certainly has friends in higher places than Kofi). Even if he wins, I think he'd face Cena again at the Rumble. DX would be the number two and three faces, and they're tag champs now, so they're likely out of the running for a title shot, so I don't see any other situation besides Sheamus vs. Cena at the Rumble, unless they make it a multi-man match and include Orton; that wouldn't count as a straight one-on-one match, especially since Sheamus would still have the title

JC: They could always super-stack the deck with three heels against Cena and make it a four-way after Swagger was booked to look strong on Raw. But, I'm putting the highest possibility on Cena-Sheamus III at the Rumble, followed by Sheamus retaining and WWE booking a tournament or some sort of #1 contender series with five weeks of TV before the Rumble. ... Let's talk Smackdown from Friday's show. They set up two title matches for this Friday's show after Rey won a #1 contender match over Batista. What was your impression of Smackdown?

GP: I liked it, and I'm liking it now the more I think back to it, thanks to it being devoid of the ridiculousness that has weighed down Raw for a while now. Mysterio vs. Undertaker should be an interesting match, though I'm mildly surprised WWE is giving it away on Christmas night; therefore, I wouldn't expect any big surprises (and I don't read the spoilers!). The Hart Dynasty and the opening six-man tag were good matches as well.

JC: It seems they really wanted to build up viewership for the Christmas episode to close 2009 with a decent rating, especially when Rey is a proven ratings draw. Rey's return on December 11 led to a 15 percent increase in viewers compared to the previous week, so I think they really want to combat people tuning out on Christmas to do a strong rating. Smackdown has re-found its stride, I believe. They hit a lull for a while with the Montreal Screwjob business in September and October, but now they're back to hitting on all cylinders with good focus on Batista's heel character, Punk's promos, and some good wrestling.

GP: Certainly, but you have to bet no matter what the line-up, people are just too busy on Christmas to tune in. That's what surprises me about the stacked lineup. But I guess, at least they're trying to get a decent rating as opposed to writing the episode off as unimportant.

JC: Which is what they pretty much did on Raw, unfortunately. What has jumped out at you on Smackdown lately? Maybe a storyline or a character with potential to be part of the main event picture next year?

GP: Obviously, both Drew McIntyre and John Morrison continue to impress week-in and week-out. It's a real treat to watch them in the ring. If WWE got serious about the tag division (yeah, I know), Slam Master J and Jimmy Wang Yang would be a good lower-card duo; they've teamed up two weeks in a row now and have showed off some good athleticism. And with Bret Hart coming in, I'm sure the Hart Dynasty will move up the ranks as well.

JC: Hart Dynasty will certainly benefit from Bret Hart coming in, even if Hart is mainly on Raw. I'm just hoping Dolph gets another chance in the spotlight again. There is a lot of good potential on the Smackdown mid-card pushing for a chance to be in the conversation for main events. I just think the tag titles need to be on Smackdown mainly where WWE can really establish some tandems. Hart Dynasty, Cryme Tyme, Slam & Yang, Knox & Ziggler, perhaps even Morrison & Rey or McIntyre & Sheamus down the line.

GP: True, I like Ziggler, and because of the way he's been buried lately. I didn't even think of him.

JC: That might be one of the best ways to utilize the young talent on the roster outside of getting more contenders in the IC Title picture. And how about Dr. Knox's dropkick on Superstars last wek? I'm liking Knox's character lately.

GP: Yeah, that came out of nowhere, and looked extremely impressive. Still, Knox needs some more wins to add to his resume, or his character doesn't really work. It means nothing if you know how to hurt people and yet still can't win a match.

JC: (1:12:15 PM): And it looked silly when JTG pinned Knox on Superstars. Like, c'mon, that's not realistic and it made Knox look silly. Look at that, a conversation on Superstars. That's a first for our weekly chat. Greg, anything else you wanted to touch on this afternoon before we wrap up the chat?

GP: Only that with every Raw that goes by, I'm looking forward more and more to January 4th. Of course, if TNA thinks they can compete with WWE by bringing in guys like Scott Hall and X-Pac, that ain't gonna work over the long term. But anything to wake WWE up from the doldrums they've been mired in; hopefully, Bret Hart's deal will also shake them loose and get them motivated to improve the product.

JC: I think every wrestling fan hopes for two things in 2010: WWE shaken up to start producing decent TV and TNA has a long-term plan beyond January 4. I keep thinking in my head that they bring in all these names on January 4, but then what happens after that? If they pop a 1.5 rating, are they back to 1.1 on January 14 back on Thursday nights?

GP: And do they stick with the guys they bring in if they pop a rating? Or do they try to slowly phase them out and get fans used to the real TNA talent, not the ones just brought in for shock value?

JC: The story of TNA has always been short-term interest, no sticking power because it's nostalgia, limited exposure to the new stars of this decade, and back to the same ratings. I'm waiting to see something tangible from Hogan saying he's "turning things upside down" that makes me think this will be anything but a short-term pop in interest, then Hogan becomes disinterested, and we're back to the same thing. I HOPE that's not the case because WWE needs someone on their tail.

GP: I think we can safely agree on that point.

JC: Agreed! Well, Greg, good chat today covering a number of subjects. A pleasure as always!

GP: You betcha!

[Torch art credit Grant Gould (c) PWTorch.com]

We suggest these recent related articles...

WRESTLING PODCAST LOG: Patrick from Tough Enough on Ross & Booker's shows, Austin talks hot topics, Jericho/Mr. Belding, Flair/Madden, Taz, Cabana, more

WRESTLING PODCAST LOG: Heyman talks to Chael Sonnen & Austin, Flair & Steamboat, Cornette to Jim Ross & Roddy Piper, Cabana, Jericho, Taz, more

WRESTLING PODCAST LOG: Jericho talks to Ventura, Cabana to Hawkins, Austin/Barnett, Ross/Danny Davis, Booker/Vickie, Piper/Valentine, Flair, Taz, more