James Caldwell: This is Torch assistant editor James Caldwell joined by Torch columnist Greg Parks for our weekly chat covering WWE Raw, TNA Impact, and WWE NXT. We're "recording" this on Tuesday night before NXT to establish a proper context to the discussion. Greg, we're fresh off Raw and Impact from Monday night. What jumped out at you from either shows?

Greg Parks: Tough to say; there wasn't that one big moment that we've been able to point to the past few weeks. Obviously, TNA moving back to Thursdays...ahem...back "home"...would fit that description. As for the actual content of the shows, I guess it would be Edge's turn back to heel, not only on Christian during Smackdown Friday, but on Orton last night on Raw. And I loved his explanation, too.

Caldwell: I think the move back to Thursdays is certainly the bigger story compared to the content on either show. You could say the content on Impact made it pretty clear why TNA was moving back to Thursday, but what do you make of the overall decision to switch back? Do you think it was too soon or the right timing?

Parks: I think it may have been too soon, but then again, in a sick way, I wanted to see how low the TNA ratings could get, or rather, what they'd look like over the long term. As far as TNA's long-term viability, the move back to Thursdays is probably the right decision, since I don't see how you can spin the ratings they've been getting on Mondays as a positive in any sense of the word.

Caldwell: I wanted TNA to continue on Mondays to see if they would actually implement some of the positives from the April 19 Impact with RVD's title win. Of course, they can do that now on Thursdays, but I wanted to see if they actually had the discipline on Mondays to turn things around and see if the ratings would respond. It was inevitable they would return to Thursdays, but I think it was an early move in response to the 0.5 rating last Monday. Do you think this "defeat" on Mondays will affect management or will TNA simply stay the course with the people they have in place e.g. Eric Bischoff and Hulk Hogan in place helping run the show?

Parks: It's tough to say. It'd be really easy to say they'll be bailing soon, but without knowing the background of their deal with TNA (we don't even know their positions within the company, let alone contract status, etc.), it's hard to make a prediction. I don't really know where TNA would go from here if Bischoff and Hogan bailed. It'd be another new era for TNA, like the third in the last year.

Caldwell: The thing is they were doing stronger ratings with the previous talent mix they had before bringing in Hogan & Bischoff and more big-name, big-money stars. I think this company could build a nice following if they made the necessary creative changes, decided Thursday night is their night without thinking about Mondays at all, and decided who their long-term stars are while building around the younger stars they have on the roster. Let's talk specifics from Impact. What did you think of the Hogan-Sting "summit" that the show was centered around? I thought the whole explanation was a total mess and left viewers confused.

Parks: Definitely. But that seems to be TNA's M.O, more often than not. And ending the show with three stars from the WCW days a decade ago is really telling about what TNA is really all about. I don't think anything was really settled during the Hogan-Sting summit, from what I understood of it.

Caldwell: The key being "from what I understood." Sting isn't the greatest talker, then throw in some really convoluted stuff from 10-20-years ago trying to be applied to 2010, and it was a mess. My head hurt trying to wrap my brain around what they were trying to discuss and get across the audience. Anyways, what did you think about Desmond Wolfe getting the TNA title shot as part of the "fan poll" and how it was presented?

Parks: They didn't seem to explicitly say he was getting the shot BECAUSE of the rankings, because it sounded like Hogan just came up with it when he announced it. And to have him job in three minutes doesn't do anyone any good, except for TNA to say, "See, that's what happens when you vote against what we're trying to feed you on TV."

Caldwell: Yeah, I thought it cheapened the title (two weeks after they effectively built it up) by flippantly presenting a title match with minimal hype and acting like the fans were at fault for this match occurring. Anything else from Impact worth banging our heads against the wall discussing or should we talk Raw?

Parks: How about the nonsensical Eric Young turn? That was fun.

Caldwell: It's a mess. And every time they do one of these turns of a turn of a turn, the storyline knot gets tighter and tighter as they try to explain alliances and allegiances. Plus, what TNA doesn't seem to understand with this short-sighted booking is that the audience is being conditioned not to buy into these storylines, as characters aren't consistent and the audience is being told time and time again that it will all change in a matter of weeks or months.

Parks: Wait for Abyss's turn on Hogan, if it comes as rumored. That's going to be a fun one to have to sit through!

Caldwell: And who's going to care about that? The audience sure doesn't care for Abyss as a main-eventer. After all, he was last place in the Championship Fan poll. Okay, let's talk Raw. I didn't like the show much within the context of a two-hour wrestling show, but they did a lot of stuff I like for long-term down the road. What did you think of the show within itself and then building for the future?

Parks: I liked both. I thought they planted some fine seeds for the future, and as a self-contained show, it kept me entertained and interested through all two hours. I think the only segment I didn't really care for was the backstage segment with Brady, Santino and a cast of thousands. But I suppose they're afforded one of those per show.

Caldwell: I liked the seeds for the future with Orton-Edge, Batista-Cena-Sheamus, and the Jericho/Miz formation. Those were three strong segments. I thought the mid-card programs were presented as filler and seemed to be thrown together without a plan for where it's leading to. I'm really curious to see what they do with DiBiase and Morrison, though, so at least I was intrigued. What did you think of the final segment with Orton and Edge?

Parks: I do think it's better for someone like Zack Ryder to appear on Raw and job to Henry, and keep him fresh in the viewers minds even if they don't have anything for him to do right now, than to fight on Superstars and lose. Who knows when an injury is going to pop up and they need to elevate a guy like Ryder. At least the fans will be familiar with him. I loved the final segment, from the RKO to Wayne Brady, to Edge using the real-life situation to help turn him heel (and Orton a little more of a face). I think it worked very well and Edge's strong mic work carried the segment.

Caldwell: I would have accepted the Ryder bit more if the segment were not part of a series of what I felt were really poor or filler segments. To me, it felt like one after another poor segments that increased my frustration with the show. Otherwise, I would totally agree with you on Ryder. As for Edge and Orton, Edge's mic work was great and one of the freshest segments he's been involved in as a heel in a long time. Orton, meanwhile, is an absolute star. Great work from him. What do you make of Orton almost being positioned as a stronger face than John Cena right now? Or, is Cena is still "the man" on Raw?

Parks: I think Cena is still the man, and Orton is being POSITIONED as a stronger face, he may simply come across that way because the fans are treating him as more of a face than Cena. No doubt, Cena is still number one.

Caldwell: I thought it was interesting there was no follow-up on Cena being KO'ed by Sheamus after their segment earlier in the show. That's what made me pose the question since WWE typically has some sort of babyface follow-up from Cena unless it's the Batista bit where he's KO'ed at the very end of the show. I'm curious to see how it plays out. What about Sheamus's involvement with Batista-Cena? Do you see a three-way title match at the PPV?

Parks: I don't at this point, but I think it'll continue to come into play and have a bigger impact down the line. I think it will be interesting to see where Sheamus does fit in, especially as Batista's career seems to hang in the balance as far as the "will he or won't he" leave WWE.

Caldwell: They seem to be positioning Sheamus to fill in for Batista after the PPV, so I'm still of the belief they have Batista vs. Cena at the PPV, then pick up the Cena-Sheamus feud afterward. You can almost see the layers of this unfolding where WrestleMania was designed to establish Sheamus as a legit main-eventer despite losing to Triple H, then Sheamus got his win over Hunter at Extreme Rules to solidify him as a main-eventer, and then if Sheamus is built up as a threat to Cena to sell a round of PPVs, Sheamus won't suddenly be a "lost cause" big-man heel if he loses to Cena. WWE has been protecting Sheamus along the way to make sure he can be a legit main-eventer for more than just a few months to be fed to Cena, but for years to come.

Parks: That makes sense. They don't seem to have much for Sheamus to do, yet want to keep him positioned in the main event status for down the line. I liken that a bit to Ryder, in that they may think they have something with him, but nothing for him really to do, yet they want to keep him in the forefront of the viewers' minds. Sorry to go back to that again. Speaking of Batista and Cena, what did you think of the Beat the Clock challenge featuring the NXT Rookies?

Caldwell: I see where you're going with trying to convince me on Ryder! Nice. I really liked the booking of the Batista-Bryan match. I thought it was excellently scripted to get Bryan a lot of TV time (in the context of Raw usually featuring a bunch of short mid-card segments), show off his arsenal of strikes and submissions, and make him seem like a legit threat to anyone on the roster. I thought it went great. Wade Barrett's deal with Cena was more forgettable because of the focus on Jericho and the post-match, but I liked Batista-Bryan a lot. What did you think?

Parks: I think the same for the most part. I really liked Bryan vs. Batista, unfortunately, he showed great selling ability that will probably make WWE want to put the big guys over him (a la Evan Bourne) when he makes it to the main roster. Barrett's was certainly the lesser of the two, but I still think him getting a shot against Cena was a vote of confidence for him, and he held his own.

Caldwell: WWE seemed to make it clear they're banking on Barrett and Bryan as the two top stars coming out of the NXT show. Both have different styles and are marketable in their own respects. I could definitely see Bryan in that Evan Bourne role, unfortunately, but I believe he has a "tougher image" that will make match-ups with bigger guys more compelling and could lead to some victories for Bryan (assuming he ever wins a match on NXT). Segue! We're recording this before NXT tonight, so what are your overall impressions of NXT right now and how this show looks and feels about ten weeks in?

Parks: We're seeing more personalities develop through the contests they do each week, but some of them (like last week's) were a bit hard to watch. I'd still like to see more Rookie-Pro interaction, but it's probably too late in this season to start developing that. We've seen them all do what they do in the ring; the characters are what really need to be worked on the final few weeks.

Caldwell: I thought the contest last week was a real step back for the show and the poor ratings back that up. I'm all for focusing on the personalities in unique ways, but selling programs? C'mon. Who do you think is the first elimination on next week's show?

Parks: I'm thinking it has to be Michael Tarver. Darren Young has done enough to keep him around. But then, it does make Tarver look double-worse for quitting on everything, then being eliminated. I'm not sure what WWE would be going for with that, as opposed to him quitting all the contests, then slowly coming around or something.

Caldwell: It definitely seems too late for Tarver to make that turn around, and I agree that he's probably gone next week. I bet he sticks around, though, as Carlito's bag boy and they build some sort of program from that. I could see him having a future on WWE TV, but not in a regular wrestling role. Perhaps a Luke Gallows type background enforcer character. Is anything else standing out from NXT lately that we haven't touched on?

Parks: Not really. I'd love to say there's a stand-out in-ring performer, but they just aren't giving them enough time in the ring to really develop their skills or stand-out to the fans.

Caldwell: There doesn't seem much of consequence to what happens on NXT right now. The matches seem like filler and the contests are apparently irrelevant to the rankings. I just hope we get more of the "Pros talking about Rookies" video packages, as we know WWE isn't going to deliver compelling outside-the-ring content that would help build up the characters in a unique way. Greg, any final thoughts on topics we haven't covered yet before we wrap up?

Parks: I think we're good for this week.

Caldwell: Sounds good! Thanks again for the chat, Greg. Always a pleasure.

Parks: Sure thing, 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!