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. Greg, let's start off with this week's hot topic on The Rock vs. John Cena Week 2 of their promo battles. What was your lasting impression of this week's exchange? And, was it effective hyping their WrestleMania match?

Greg Parks: My lasting impression wasn't so much their face-to-face encounter, but what each man did individually throughout the show, that being Rock's three history lesson promos, and Cena's empty arena promo. I think each of those moments allowed the guys to stand out in a way they couldn't by going face-to-face. That said, the tension was palpable in their in-ring exchange and it's certainly adding an intriguing angle to their match and build-up.

Caldwell: And, I think Rock and Cena have to be "away from each other" for the majority of this build-up because if they're trying to create this impression that things are legitimately tense and they legitimately don't like each other, then they can't keep coming face-to-face without someone landing a punch. And, I don't think they should touch at all before Mania, so WWE has to be real careful not to make this look like just another wrestling feud. The raging debate this week has been about who's "winning" the verbal exchange - some people see Cena showing new fire and Rock using dated, tired material. Some people see Rock outclassing Cena, who pretty much laughed through Rock's portion of their face-to-face promo. How do you see the argument, Greg?

Parks: I think both sides have valid points, which is what makes this so fun to discuss. I think Cena has kicked it up a notch and is certainly doing better work on his promos than he has in some time, at least on a more consistent basis. I could do without the smirking. The Rock, on an off day, is still better than what the majority of the rest of the roster has to offer - that's not a criticism of the roster, but it shows how good Rock is that he's still good on an off night. And he has had a few of those lately.

Caldwell: I think Rock is a little handcuffed, too, because he could bring out some heavy artillery to tear down Cena, but it wouldn't be good for business short or long-term. I'm waiting to see if he brings out one or two of those bullets in his arsenal in the coming weeks before Mania, but I think this would have been the week to do it in response to last week's big promo from Cena. So, I imagine it will be simple reinforcement in the coming weeks about Cena's wardrobe, gimmicks, corporate-backing, etc., etc. Do you think they need to focus more on the actual match and outcome, especially because this promo battle is running out of material? Cena had the Empty Arena Promo talking about why he needs the win; Rock dabbled there a bit, but they still seem to be focused on just doing a lot of talking before they actually fight.

Parks: You say Rock bringing the noise a little harder would be bad for business, but I don't know that the way they're doing things now, with both men tearing each other down (which unfortunately has been a consistent tune amongst feuding wrestlers the past few months) is really good for business either. I don't necessarily agree that the promo battle is running out of material; they really have a lot of material to draw from and haven't really scratched the surface of this era vs. era epic that the match had been build as for a while. I will agree though that if they keep going in circles like they have been, just trading insults, then yeah, it'll get old fast. You mentioned that both men talked about needing to win this past Monday and of course I'd say they need to reinforce that more. Do you think maybe they haven't been reinforcing it much up to this point because they don't want either man to disappoint their fanbase by promising to win and not ending up doing so?

Caldwell: That seems to be the main reason I can see. I think WWE wouldn't have booked this match one year ago unless both men were comfortable with a finish and had an idea of how they wanted to promote the match, but this is WWE, so they might have just figured they would come up with a finish as they went along. Here we are in the present and does it seem like WWE is trying to avoid focusing on the actual result. Cena came out strong about wanting the headline to read "John Cena beats The Rock in Miami," but, this week, he focused more on why he needs to win - without guaranteeing victory. I'll be curious to see how he approaches it this coming week. I thought you made a really good point on the Livecast yesterday contrasting Taker-Hunter, which has a lot of history to draw from, and Cena-Rock having zero history to draw from, but being a clash of two eras. I think you're right about WWE needing to do more with the Clash of Eras. Perhaps they focus in on that in the final build-up, but I feel like that's been overlooked in the exchange of manparts jokes.

Parks: I'm really surprised it hasn't been more about era vs. era, but WWE has made their choice that they want more tension between the two - if they were to do era vs. era, WWE might be tempted to go the respect route, maybe just having two guys want to decide which era was the best, and in that way, maybe WWE knows that no fans would buy that Cena's era was "better" in any imaginable way than Rock's era, so they threw that idea out the window. Either way, unless there's a drastic shift over the next few weeks, I'd guess WWE is going to stick with what they've done so far, and really, given the buzz about the match, from their perspective, that might not be a bad thing.

Caldwell: That would be really sad for WWE to essentially admit this era is nowhere good as Rock's era when WWE is trying to build the stars of the future. It would be like the equivalent of C.M. Punk cutting the legs out from under Alberto Del Rio! In general, WWE's MO is to focus on one singular issue and hammer it home and hammer it home, so, it seems the big issue is the "personal grudge" aspect. Before we move on, what do you expect from the Musical Number next week? Do you see them in the ring together exchanging songs and raps, or will they be kept separate?

Parks: I don't think WWE would ever admit on air that Rock's era was better, I'm saying I don't think they'd broach it on TV because the fans wouldn't buy that this era is better (and really, I don't think they would). I think the songs could be kept separate, but where's the fun in that? They're going to take digs at each other, and wouldn't you want to get reaction shots after they rip each other down in song?

Caldwell: Yeah, I would definitely want to get the reaction shots. I just can't picture Cena sitting on a stool in the ring while Rock is strumming a guitar. I'm exaggerating that setting and scenario a bit, but the whole idea seems to silly and potentially getting away from the tone of what's supposed to be a heated rivalry at this point. Greg, any other thoughts on Rock-Cena before we tackle Hunter-HBK-Taker?

Parks: Nah, let's go to the build-up for Hunter vs. Taker. I thought Shawn and Hunter did a nice job this past week, laying their sarcasm on thick in a way you don't often see in pro wrestling. What did you think of that segment and what do you expect of the HBK vs. Taker confrontation this coming week?

Caldwell: I really, really like how this been laid out thus far. It's built upon itself with two out of the three involved participants rotating in and out of the story on a weekly basis (along with the one week where a great video package sufficed). The thing that I'm not sure is just part of the build-up for Taker-Hunter or is part of a larger plotline is whether Hunter's character is a perpetual liar and he'll eventually be exposed for it. He made the claims about "wanting to protect" Michaels that were very transparent - and sarcastic, as you pointed out. Going back to last year, WWE seemed to leave an impression that Hunter also lied about The Family supporting Vince McMahon's removal as on-air authority figure. I'm deviating from what's right in front of us right now - the Taker-Hunter build-up - but I can't get the possibility of a "bigger picture" aspect out of my mind when looking at the Hunter-HBK exchange. What do you think?

Parks: They never really followed up on any of that stuff with Hunter though, so I think it's more coincidental than anything WWE is planning out. What would be the payoff for it anyone? A big reveal that he's lying? I don't know that it would be worth it. I just think he's protecting his ego here.

Caldwell: The only payoff I could see would be the official removal of Hunter as the loosely-defined and rarely-referenced COO figure, then he could either return to a regular wrestling role or take time off from TV and only return if needed. Otherwise, I'm with you that I don't see where else they could go with it. It's frustrating when there are so many loose ends from past storylines and you never know if WWE is going to revisit one of those when something new develops that looks and smells and feels like it relates to that loose string. As for what's happening right now, I definitely feels like Mr. Tough Guy Triple H is protecting himself and his ego with Michaels calling him out. Do you see this developing with Hunter playing more of a heelish role in the build-up against Taker or will they even it out a little bit between The Last Of A Dying Breed figures?

Parks: I don't know whether it'll be Triple H or Michaels who will be more heelish. They almost set up the idea that Michaels may screw Hunter out of a possible win at WrestleMania. I just don't see Taker NOT being a face, even though with his streak, you'd think they'd be able to do something heelish with him surrounding that. But I don't think fans will boo him. What I'm worried about is the focus becoming too much of Hunter and HBK, and almost treating Taker and the streak like an afterthought. I doubt it'll come to that, but it's worth pointing out.

Caldwell: That's definitely the risk WWE is running by adding Michaels to the mix as special referee. It's good that Taker is back on Raw this coming week to almost be like, "Hey, guys, remember me? The one with The Streak? I know Hunter pretty much made me sound like a weak, old man, but I still haven't lost at Mania!" It will be interesting to see what WWE does with all three on the same show for the first time after rotating two at a time. I have to ask about the other over-arching potential conspiracy item. Michaels announced he's special ref, but the announcers made it sound like neither Teddy Long nor John Laurinaitis approved it. So, who would have approved Michaels as special ref? Dare I ask? Or, is it just one of those "don't ask, it just happened" WWE things?

Parks: Yeah, "don't ask." It almost feels like it HAS to be addressed, with Triple H still being COO, and it still could be, as it was really the last thing Michaels said in his promo, so we haven't gotten Triple H's full reaction to it yet. He could come on the show this week and say something like, "Shawn went over my head, his contract as ref is iron-clad and I can't do anything to take him out of the match." It could be that simple.

Caldwell: Yeah, something like The Board approved it. The same fictional yahoos who decided it would be a good idea to switch GMs for a week. To wrap up the HBK-Hunter-Taker discussion, I'm with you from earlier about WWE almost making Michaels seem like the most heelish of the bunch, which seems like a mechanism to create tension for Taker-Hunter on whether he'll favor one or the other. We shall see. Greg, speaking of the feuding GMs, I felt like that was the other big story on Raw. What did you make of Long as Raw GM for a week?

Parks: It was relatively uneventful, all things considered. It didn't feel "different" than John Laurinaitis running things. Still, I don't really mind the feud - I don't find either man to be particularly worthy of building a storyline around, but WWE is doing it pretty well thanks in part to Long getting terrific face heat and Laurinaitis getting great heel heat.

Caldwell: I thought it was odd that Long was all over the beginning of the show with involvement in the Santino vs. Swagger title match, then Long was never heard from again. Granted, there were more important items to focus on concerning WrestleMania, but Long didn't have much of a presence after that first half-hour. We've talked about a likely multi-man tag match for Mania, but do you see Long and Laurinaitis also being part of that team in a wrestling capacity after their latest physical exchange on Raw?

Parks: I think one of the former WWE writers Tweeted recently that they were to never write anything that required Teddy Long to take a bump, so while he could still be in the match, I'd guess it would be unlikely. It would be much more interesting to have them cheering on their respective teams than actually participating.

Caldwell: And it would take away from the actual wrestlers trying to get their Mania moment and actually be elevated with a lot of eyeballs on this PPV. We should find out this coming Monday on Raw who will be on the respective rosters, so that will at least settle the issue of which full-time wrestlers will get a Mania spot. There aren't too many spots left after this match is set. Greg, the other Big Four Mania match from the Raw brand is Jericho vs. Punk, but there wasn't much about that match this week on Raw. There was a tag match and Jericho got in the ol' "heel challenger pins babyface champion in a tag match and steals the belt" cliche, but no promo work. Was that a good thing to hold off on the verbal or do they need to keep talking this close to Mania?

Parks: It was a fine deal; we had Taker-Triple H take the week off the previous week with just a video package, and this week, it was Jericho-Punk that wasn't the focus, and as I suggested a month or two ago, once build-up starts in overdrive (as it has), you can't emphasize all three big matches each week, so they'll rotate doing two each week and giving one the week off. With the HBK-Taker confrontation and the sing-off this week, I wonder if Jericho-Punk will again take a back-back seat.

Caldwell: It certainly seems that way. I think more needs to be done to emphasize the feud involving the actual WWE Title, as Rock-Cena and Taker-Hunter will be gone after Mania. Granted, WWE is all about selling WrestleMania as their biggest business-driver of the year, but I think more needs to be done with what's year-round, e.g. re-establishing the value of the title. But, I think Punk and Jericho just need that one memorable promo exchange to take care of business. Greg, elsewhere there was the latest Big Show Embarrassment in the middle of a match, the latest random Orton-Kane exchange, and Miz & R-Truth took their now-regular bumps on the forehead. What did you make of the Smackdown-related items on Raw that also lumped together Miz and Truth?

Parks: I was more intrigued by Zack Ryder's return than anything- he got a nice pop coming out to the live crowd, then seemed smitten when Eve seemed to prove her point that men will do anything to be with her when she kissed Ryder and he was seeing stars again. It certainly doesn't make my prediction of Ryder coming out of this looking good...well...look good. James, they only briefly reintroduced Ryder last Monday, but do you think he's really being portrayed as an idiot for seemingly forgiving Eve, or is this a set-up on his part?

Caldwell: I think it fits the character he's playing right now - Lloyd Christmas from Dumb & Dumber. Will it turn into something more - like a set-up by Ryder to get back at Eve? Usually, I can entertain that thought because you know I'm always looking for some sort of conspiracy or over-arching story to be explained, but I just don't see it with Ryder, even though I think he's capable of playing more than a Dumb & Dumber character. He played up being smitten during his U.K. media tour and he played it up again on his YouTube show today. Based on how simplistic WWE has made his character seem, I just can't see him having a plan. I think all he wanted was a kiss from Eve and he's set for life!

Parks: Well, he certainly got it. Hopefully he can move on to something worthwhile and maybe get a gimmick change while he's at it. Anything else worth discussing from Raw, or shall we move on?

Caldwell: Only other thing would be the Divas division, but with Beth Phoenix disappearing and Eve-A. Fox getting 40 seconds in the ring, I think we need to see where they're going with a Mania match before we can dive into that. I think we can shift gears to Smackdown, then tackle Impact last night. What do you think is the biggest story concerning the Smackdown brand right now? It seems like there are a bunch of stories, but not one really big one, unless you count the general Daniel Bryan title run entering its third month.

Parks: Yeah, Daniel Bryan would fit that bill, but not necessarily Daniel Bryan vs. Sheamus. The issue seems really thin there, though both men have been written pretty well. Bryan's character, despite being the typical "heel retains title by fluke," has at least been entertaining. Sheamus has simply built up credible win after credible win, making him seem like an unstoppable force heading into 'Mania. Hopefully beginning this week, we can see them interact more and really kick things into high gear.

Caldwell: I'm with you on them needing to jump in with some interaction. I feel like WWE is just doing the minimum right now and they need to take it to the next level, especially playing up the idea of Bryan winning so many matches lately and Sheamus being on a complete roll. The Smackdown title match isn't going to sell Mania, but that freedom should allow them to do more with the feud. We'll see what happens tonight. What about the Big Show-Rhodes build-up? Do you like the direction they've gone with weekly replays of Show's Mania struggles?

Parks: Yeah, I think that's fine. Rhodes is a heel that, in his character, would make sense that he'd want to rub it in to Big Show at every turn. I'm wondering what they do at 'Mania though: A win by Rhodes only confirms that Show stinks at 'Mania, but a win by Show would stunt Cody's growth and make him seem like he got beat by a guy who celebrities often beat. Maybe a Rhodes win with a Big Show post-match beatdown?

Caldwell: We're on the same wavelength here, as I was going to ask you what the outcome is that most benefits Rhodes in this situation. I don't see Rhodes winning this match, as it's a classic WWE story of the "picked on babyface" overcoming the dastardly heel's taunts and general heelish activity at Mania. WWE would have to give Rhodes something in that Mania match that he can use on TV to have an "out" after losing to Show. Like you said, if Rhodes knocks Show as a Mania Loser who can't even win a Sumo Wrestling match, then Rhodes loses, then it seems like Rhodes is weak. So, I think Rhodes either gets in a post-match Cross Rhodes or there's something he can use on TV during the match. I'll be curious to see if that's the case. Shifting gears a bit - Greg, in your wildest imagination, what is the explanation of Kane beginning a feud with Orton? Or, will there be an explanation?

Parks: It seems the exact opposite of what Kane wanted from Cena- that being to embrace the hate. If there's any babyface who has embraced the hate over the years, it's Orton, so clearly Kane has moved on from that. I really don't know what the explanation could possibly be. Maybe Kane thought, "Orton doesn't have a match at 'Mania; maybe if I attack him, they'll put me in a match with him!"

Caldwell: Ah, go after the biggest star remaining who's not already in a Mania match to guarantee a Mania match. I like it. Kane is a businessman and not just an evil, crazy man who wears two masks. Could you imagine Kane in a business suit? It would be as crazy as Abyss in a suit, right? Wait, that happened. We'll get to that in a moment. Elsewhere on Smackdown, Greg, Drew McIntyre "got fired" and Big Show vs. Mark Henry happened again. What do you make of the respective standings of Mr. Drew and Mr. Henry right now?

Parks: When you were talking about Kane being a businessman, the first thing I thought of was Abyss without the mask last night. Mark Henry I think will be one of the guys on Laurinaitis' side come WrestleMania, as his feud with Teddy Long has been well-known for a while. As for Drew...I prefer to wait 'til after Smackdown, because my guess is Laurinaitis brings him back tonight. If he doesn't and Drew doesn't make an appearance, all bets are off as far as him being in the presumed 'Mania tag match.

Caldwell: I figure we've done enough Chats by now to where you can predict where I'm going with my thinking! You know, there's been a lot of talk of a multi-man tag match, but could there be a battle royal where everyone wears a Team Teddy or Team Johnny t-shirt, especially if there are more heels than faces available for this match, so that it doesn't turn into a handicap match? Or, would that be risking damage to the Royal Rumble by having a battle royal on the actual Mania broadcast (rather than pre-PPV dark match)?

Parks: No, I think a battle royal is possible, though ideally I think you'd keep it to guys who actually have an issue with Teddy or Johnny, or want to support them for a particular reason rather than, "let's throw Tyler Reks on team Johnny for whatever reason." That's why I'd personally favor a tag match.

Caldwell: I think the one benefit, of course, would be a plausible explanation for Hornswoggle to be on Team Teddy in the battle royal because he does have a battle royal victory on his resume from that holiday-themed live Smackdown. So, that has to count for something, right? I'm kidding, of course, but I'm with you on preferring a tag match. Do you think there will be stakes attached to said tag match? Winning team's GM runs both shows or something along those lines?

Parks: I think there almost has to be some stakes, and it seems they're gearing up to have one guy lead both shows. Whether that's the situation for the match or not, I don't know. But again, I would assume for the match to be worth anything, they would have to have something at stake.

Caldwell: Agreed. Otherwise, it's just a way to get a bunch of guys on the Mania card without any purpose attached to it, and I think that's a waste. Greg, anything else Smackdown or WWE-related before we cross the line to TNA?

Parks: I think we're all set for this week for Smackdown. We already mentioned Abyss, so let's talk about that: After being off TV for a while, Abyss's "brother" shows up looking for him. Of course, it's Abyss without the mask, but look quickly like I did and you'd think it was Penn Jillette. So, James...what's the story?

Caldwell: I think they will finally follow up on the PPV a few months ago where Abyss seemingly "disappeared" and Bully Ray had blood on his hands, claiming he doesn't know where Abyss went or what happened to him. So, I think they will use this faux brother to reintroduce Abyss and get to the bottom of what happened to him, then the brother will disappear. Doesn't it seem like TNA and/or Abyss have an obsession with the character's strange family, dating back to the Jim Mitchell era? I think it's an intriguing way to introduce Abyss without a mask, but I hope they have a good payoff in mind. Hopefully not something like Abyss is resuming his psychophrenic ways where it's revealed that Abyss has no brother and he just returned to TV under a new identity.

Parks: Abyss's character is TNA's version of Kane in a lot of ways, mostly because they've been involved in a lot of wrestlecrap. His backstory is just as convoluted as Kane's, except no one has written a book about it. I haven't checked shoptna.com in a while, so they may even have that out.

Caldwell: It's one of those characters where everyone knows the character is a complete mess of a back-story, so it almost gives the writers creative license to dream up wild ideas because, conceivably, it could fit because none of it makes sense. It's a weird situation. As for the overall Impact show, it seems like the consensus is a step backward for TNA. What do you think was the main factor in that?

Parks: They just got away from a lot of what made the show a creative success the past few weeks: You had EY winning a women's title, too much of a focus on Garett Bischoff after getting a few weeks reprieve on that; the Abyss mess; and the return of Mr. Anderson as the same old Mr. Anderson.

Caldwell: It seemed like all of the things that made people frustrated about Impact in the past were packed onto one show, instead of being spread out so they didn't take down the entire show. I feel Anderson needs an overhaul (and they had time to do it!) and Garett needs to be off TV until he's ready. It's just a disservice to Garett and everyone else involved at this point. As for the latest from Crazy Sting building to his PPV main event with Robert Roode, what do you make of the Sting-Roode dynamic at this point?

Parks: It's just "there," a place-holder to get Roode to James Storm at Lockdown without having to give away a PPV match between the two before then. I'm fine with that, as it's an okay use of Sting at this point to keep his in-ring time limited to make it seem more special, even though some of his rare matches are given away without hype. Oh well.

Caldwell: Yes, that's definitely a TNA issue. What did you find were some of the good developments this week that continued recent momentum?

Parks: I mean, all things considered, the opening segment wasn't terrible. The Rayne-Kim story was advanced. We got a nice, albeit short, X Division match. That's about it, and I was stretching it.

Caldwell: I was disappointed at how short the X Division Title match was, especially when they seemed to be giving the division more time recently. I guess if you give 20 minutes to Garett Bischoff, some things are going to suffer. What do you make of Aries right now? He was with top heel Roode last week and he seemed more like in a face role this week. That could be just based on circumstances facing heel Zema Ion, but what did you make of Aries this week?

Parks: Yeah, we kind of talked about it last week, wondering whether him being vaulted into the main event was a one-week stop-over or was something more permanent. After this week, it seemed like a stop-over. I'm not sure why they'd give away Aries vs. Ion here, but whatever the outcome was didn't seem to be worth it, unless they are teasing an Aries face turn.

Caldwell: It unfortunately does seem like a stop-over after the brief Twitter exchange with Sting. Also, Dixie Carter kayfabe endorsed Aries's wrestling on Twitter last night. So, it's an odd situation right now with one of their potential top heels. Greg, anything else from Impact worth breaking down?

Parks: Not at all James. I'd like to erase that one from my memory and pretend they're still on a roll.

Caldwell: Definitely understandable after that episode. All right, Greg, how about a plug for this week's Gonzo & The Greg?

Parks: This week: Top five worst announcers of all-time. We'll decide tomorrow before recording if we want to do top five worst PBP/Lead Announcers or top five worst announcers in general.

Caldwell: It's a big decision that could make or break the list! I'm looking forward to seeing what you guys come up with tomorrow. Very good, Greg. Always good chatting with you and we will talk again next week!

Parks: Great! Thanks as always, 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!