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 on a Thursday night for our weekly TV wrestling Chat. Greg, we'll go in chronological order on this week's three live wrestling shows starting with Monday's Raw, then Tuesday's live Smackdown, and tonight's live Impact. Looking at Raw, Greg, the show concluded with A.J. standing tall over WWE champ C.M. Punk and #1 contender Daniel Bryan. What did you make of how they concluded the show and what were thoughts on Raw, overall?

Greg Parks: I liked the way they ended Raw; in fact, I liked it so much, I wished they would've let that simmer for the entire week rather than re-visit the feud just a day later on Smackdown, and further complicate things. I understand the complaints of A.J. usurping attention away from the competitors fighting over the WWE Title, but I thought particularly the ending angle of Raw was well-done, aside from there being no contest in the match, but that's another story.

Caldwell: Ah, yes, the all-too-often non-finish to a marquee match that TNA has actually gotten away from and something WWE has decided to explore to its full annoyance and laziness. I think you best summed up the aspect of A.J. being centerpiece of the WWE Title feud on the Livecast today - it's worth the TV investment and, as you said right here, you like the storyline, but it lacks the gravitas of a WWE Title feud. I also don't like the top guys in the title picture being more concerned over A.J. than competing for the WWE Title. It's one of those feuds that would be really, really good if the WWE Title were not involved. But, that continues to hurt it in my eyes. Right now, do you sense this program will continue on after MITB or do we need to see the outcome and how A.J. factors into the decision to make that call?

Parks: I think it'll continue in some form after MITB, especially if Bryan wins the title. You mentioned here that both Punk and Bryan are more concerned with A.J. than the title, but as I explained on the Livecast, in this instance, I can understand it: A.J. is crazy and Bryan thinks he can suck up to her so she'll be on his side in the title match; Punk just wants to make sure she calls it down the middle. So, because the title is so important to both men, they're going to great lengths to make sure they have the referee where they want her. With the title being ignored in main events on PPV lately, though, you'd think they'd want to focus MORE on the title to make it seem important rather than take the focus away from it.

Caldwell: That's partly where I have an issue with it - them jockeying for position with A.J. for the WWE Title match seems like the second or third-most-important issue in this program. I think it's another example of chipping away at the value and importance of the title in a long list of examples in recent and longer history. Another example is John Cena being slotted ahead of the WWE Title since he's not in the title picture (yet). However, he was involved in the opening promo exchange involving all of the parties. What did you make of Cena, Bryan, Punk, Jericho, Kane, and eventually Big Show's interaction in the Raw open?

Parks: I thought it was just okay; it didn't lead to the usual "put'em all in a tag match" that we see (especially surprising since Teddy Long was GM and that's his specialty), so in that regard, it was somewhat unique. I also like how John Cena and others are really putting over the match as a way to get to the title. I like Cena's story that he is always the guy who it gets cashed in on, so he wants to be on the other side for once. That's cool, and they've done a nice job establishing that so far. James, do you like the idea of only former WWE Champions in one MITB match, or is that too limiting?

Caldwell: If they add Rey Mysterio and Miz, I will be okay with it. And, I imagine one or both will be added on next week's Raw. Right now, it feels too much like Raw is the main-event ladder match and Smackdown is the Superstars-level ladder match, whereas past editions have had a nice, balanced mix of one or two established stars, one or two big guys to base for the high-flyers, and three or four high-flyers/mid-carders looking to take the next step. Rey would add the high-flying and Miz would add the "mid-carder looking to return to past glory" aspect... Greg, one thing I want to pause on from the opening segment is how viewers are supposed to feel about certain characters. I'm specifically thinking about Jericho and Kane. Jericho - is he supposed to be a heel? Yet, he's doing cutesy promos trying to be entertaining. Kane - I have no idea. I felt like that opening segment was hampered by undefined characters, Cena's Comedy Hour, and overly-scripted interruptions, but, mainly, the undefined characters. Do you see that as an issue or just par for the course in WWE right now?

Parks: It's certainly an issue, but not a new one. Unfortunately, WWE has a history of making characters unidentifiable because of the inconsistencies in their actions and words. I assume Jericho is still a heel and Kane is a heel too, I mean, as far as I know. You could always say, "Well, they're still heels because neither man turned," but we've seen guys just come out of the blue as a heel or face without turning in the recent past, so you can't even go by that rule anymore.

Caldwell: You nailed it - the lack of rules for the characters to abide by. It's so shades of gray at times that the heels can't get heat and the faces can't get big wins because they don't have strong heels to conquer. WWE can't generate those big highs to advance a character to the next level, and everyone stays around the same level beyond the top line. I'm definitely thinking about the eight-man tag match when I say that. All of the mid-card male face champs were on one side opposite a rising heel tag team that walked off, Cody Rhodes, who walked off, and David Otunga, who took a beating while music played to bring out Clay for a dance session with the other faces. I just don't see what was accomplished by any of this.

Parks: It's certainly a frustrating situation as a viewer because it makes it hard to get behind people. I always go to that example of when it seemed like Kofi Kingston was ready to make that next step after his big spot with Randy Orton at MSG a few years ago, then he got pulled back to the mid-card. Now, there's just a glut of guys floating around there because everything is booked so even-steven and nobody except the Cenas and Sheamuses are allowed to really get over. Now you have an entire roster of mid-level guys.

Caldwell: Right on. It's an across-the-board issue on Raw and Smackdown, especially on Smackdown, which can be seen in their MITB ladder match. Greg, elsewhere on Raw, WWE tried to rebuild Del Rio's mean streak by destroying Sin Cara, which led into Smackdown the next night when Del Rio blasted Sheamus inside a car. What do you make of them trying to re-build Del Rio once again, and does Sin Cara have a place in WWE or is it time for both sides to cut ties?

Parks: Yeah, they're certainly doing that thing they do where they treat guys like mid-carders until they're needed for a title match, then it's like, "oh crap, we gotta do something big with him to make sure he's over enough with the fans that they buy him as a title contender!" I really thought the Smackdown stuff was complete cheap heat all the way, stuff WWE wouldn't need to do if they had actually taken the time to do any kind of longer-term build wtih Del Rio or whomever.

Caldwell: Very abrupt, definitely. And, the product of short-term booking. One thing that Sean Radican and I discussed on the Livecast that I'd like to get your thoughts on is whether Sheamus's three-month title run would be improved by having a consistent heel opponent to work with instead of going back and forth between a here-and-there Del Rio and also Bryan and Ziggler. Or, have they done a good-enough-job defining Sheamus as a top guy independent of who's had to work with?

Parks: I think if you don't believe Sheamus is a strong enough face right now, you'd suggest he'd need a long-term heel opponent. If you think he's over enough as a face to where it doesn't matter who his heel opponent is, then the back-and-forth is no problem. The way he's been booked as a face hasn't always been smooth, so I think to this point, Sheamus' run as champion has been a success - just not a ratings success. Therefore, when Mark Henry comes back, I think he'd be a nice long-term opponent for Sheamus to really put him over the hump and establish him even further as a top guy.

Caldwell: That leads to another thought I have - do you think Sheamus needs more a long-term opponent who can challenge him in the ring (e.g. Mark Henry to have some all-out brawls) or someone who can challenge him on the mic and draw some more fire out of him (e.g. Dolph Ziggler if cut loose to let fly on the mic)?

Parks: I guess it's whatever WWE wants his character to be. If they want him to be the happy-go-lucky Irishman who tells his shaggy dog stories about the homeland, then I guess they'd focus him more in the ring. If they want to show off his Irish temper (if that's even a thing), then drawing the fire out of him would be the way to go. I don't know that one is better than the other - though I've certainly tired of his stupid stories, and WWE has kind of gone away from that recently - but he is the type of guy who can have a good physical brawl with a Henry-type, but also have a four-star level match with a Ziggler-type too. I think that's part of why he's so valuable at the top of the card.

Caldwell: I think he gets a bad rap because he's viewed as Triple H's work-out buddy, but I think he's quite versatile as a top champion who can work with a variety of opponents and have a good match. I'm with you there. Greg, anything else specifically from Raw worth breaking down or shall we keep the discussion going on the live Smackdown?

Parks: Let's go to Smackdown. We learned that Zack Ryder will run the show next week after he won the Battle Royal, but more importantly, both Cody Rhodes and Ziggler qualified for the MITB match. James, do you have a problem with the way Rhodes got in (losing in a tag match last week and the Board giving him a second chance), and how much did the addition of these two strengthen the World Title MITB match?

Caldwell: I gotta give some props to Booker for pointing out that you win as a team and you lose as a team, so I didn't like the inconsistent fictional Board of Directors granting Rhodes a singles re-match. They really need to define the BOD instead of using it as a crutch when convenient. But, that's another topic. At the end of the day, I do like Rhodes and Ziggler added to the match, I think they add star power to make it more B-Level than D-Level, and they are now my favorites to win the match. I'm leaning more toward Ziggler than Rhodes, although I can more picture Rhodes carrying around a briefcase than Ziggler. Which leads me to the possibility of the winner (perhaps Ziggler) cashing in the same-day as the PPV. I see the PPV match order being SD World Title MITB match, mid-card stuff, World Title match, and then perhaps a surprise cash-in. Do you see that happening to avoid having two people walking around with briefcases, or will WWE hold off on an immediate cash-in?

Parks: I think there will be an immediate cash-in, but I don't know if it'll be that night; I could see maybe in a week or two or something. I was going to suggest Summerslam, but I think Del Rio cashed in there last year. And I like the possibility of Rhodes winning more than Ziggler - I'm not saying it's going to happen, but I feel like Ziggler is so damaged at this point after being paired with a loser like Swagger for so long, in addition to losing cleanly to Sheamus so much, that he really needs to be built up before he gets back to that level. Rhodes had some damage done to him recently, but I don't know that it was as bad as Ziggler's.

Caldwell: Yeah, where's the damage meter when you need one? My goodness. Stepping back a second - were you surprised to see Ryder win the battle royal? And, will it have a significant impact on his career or will it be a one-off thing where he's Smackdown GM for the week and then he falls back into oblivion not appearing on Raw for weeks at a time?

Parks: I think it'll be a one-off thing, unfortunately. I think he deserves better, but I don't think WWE sees his character as worth investing a positive amount of TV time in. I think we probably agree that Ryder needs a gimmick change if he's to climb the ladder in WWE, but do you actually see that happening in the near future? Or has this gimmick, for good or bad, branded him as this character for good?

Caldwell: In the near-term, I think he is who he is. If he were to leave TV (and YouTube) for a few months down the road, he could return as a different character and perhaps advance up the ladder with a more serious approach while still tapping into his personality. But, I don't see that happening anytime soon because of WWE's year-round schedule where mid-characters characters typically stay on TV forever without much change unless WWE comes up with a new plan. But, with the toy licensing and video game licensing and reinforcement of characters week after week, it's like moving an elephant unless the elephant is completely taken out of the room for a period of time. (I have no idea where that analogy came from!) But, one character who has grown on me who I see eventually fading away again once the 1,000th Raw passes is Heath Slater. Do you see any lasting power for Mr. Slater post-imitating Legends or will he just return to Superstars?

Parks: He might get rewarded for doing these jobs and taking these bumps with a mid-card push, and I know there's a bit of a groundswell by some fans for Slater to get more TV time and talk of how he deserves a push, but I just don't see it. I think he's average at best across the board, from his in-ring work, to his mic work (probably below average), to his character. I think there are plenty of people ahead of him on the totem pole who deserve a push before he does, but that's just my opinion.

Caldwell: Fair enough. Would you say someone like Alex Riley, who resurfaced on Smackdown, should be in-line for more TV time ahead of Slater?

Parks: Absolutely. It boggled my mind watching his match against Ziggler on Smackdown, knowing he had absolutely no chance of winning, and remembering back to the babyface pop and heat he got when he was matched with Miz. The fact that WWE couldn't (or refused to) capitalize on that and go further with Riley really demonstrates a lot of what's wrong with the company right now, and goes back to my opening argument about nobody being able to get over the way they book today.

Caldwell: Well-said. And, then, there's Ryback, who took a step up in competition dismantling Curt Hawkins this week. I still don't see how he ever advances past squash mode when we haven't seen if he can wrestle a competent match against a credible opponent. What's your feeling on Ryback right now and what do you see him doing, say, three months from now?

Parks: Probably still working his way up the ladder. My fear is WWE also doesn't know what to do with him when getting him in competitive matches, which is why they've done squashes with him for so long. It would almost seem anti-climactic if he just began a mid-card feud with, say, Cody Rhodes or something. They way they're building him, it almost feel like something big should be coming down the pike for him when WWE wants to step up the competition even more.

Caldwell: I would say Big Show, but it seems like WWE didn't handle that well with Brodus Clay, who is now back to dancing as a mid-card act. I figure Ryback could follow a similar pattern if he's not handled with care at the do-or-die stage like Clay was. Anything else from Smackdown worth discussing, Greg?

Parks: Let's move on to tonight's Impact. The big question was how they'd address the continued saga of A.J. (Styles this time)/Dixie-Daniels/Kaz situation. They did a segment, but it seemed more to hype Styles vs. Daniels at Destination X than to actually answer whatever questions still linger about the accusations made by Daniels. So it was a relatively low-key week for this storyline. James, did TNA need a week where they didn't further complicate things, or do you think it would've been better to give the story more time in an effort to explain it better to the audience?

Caldwell: I was relieved - relieved! - to get a breather from TNA trying to throw empty explanations at this convoluted story. So, I was fine with Styles-Daniels being more focused on promoting their PPV match than going too far into the Claire/Dixie aspect. Now, I assume they'll re-visit this in more detail next week, which I'm bracing for, but it was nice to get a one-week reprieve. Plus, I thought this week's end result was good for Styles, who actually looked strong for the first time in a while getting Daniels to back down. On the flip-side, TNA put close to zero hype behind Angle vs. Joe at the PPV other than a brief video package in the second hour. But, the big PPV item was Roode vs. Aries. What did you think of their final interaction as well as Hogan's involvement?

Parks: I thought it was well-done and continues to be one of the better aspects of TNA's rejuvenation as a company. Aries deserved this push, the fans were clamoring for it, and guess what? TNA listened to the fans. I say that because I really don't think it was TNA's intent when they first brought Aries back that he would reach these heights. That's part of what separates TNA from WWE, where fan favorites are seemingly punished for being so. I don't think Aries wins on Sunday, but it's a feather in his proverbial cap to even main event a PPV at this point.

Caldwell: I think TNA has done enough with Aries and Aries has performed strong enough to where a loss won't hurt his rise. As long as he's presented like he belongs in the title picture, I don't think a loss will hurt him one bit after the pre-PPV work put in. I will be curious to see what kind of business this PPV does with the main event. It's a near-guarantee very good PPV main event, which can't be said of previous TNA PPV main events. Plus, I think TNA actually did a convincing job that Aries has some hope of winning the title. So, we'll see how they fare business-wise on Sunday. As for the other intriguing part of this PPV, we now know seven of eight participants in the X Division Title tournament, with the eighth slot filled by one of the losers of the qualifying matches. Do you see a clear-cut favorite to become new champ, or is it completely up in the air at this point?

Parks: I think Kenny King is a strong possibility, especially with the note ROH posted on their Facebook page as we were chatting tonight, basically stating they're no longer in the Kenny King business. That's a blow to ROH as he's one-half of their tag champs, but it's a coup for TNA if they can sign him to a long-term deal. He's a guy TNA may be able to build the division around. Other than him though, I wasn't really impressed by some of the X Division guys that have been trotted out there, especially this week (even King's match wasn't so hot). So, I'm curious to see what the future does hold. To go back to Aries vs. Roode, I did like how Chris Sabin was incorporated into that deal tonight.

Caldwell: I see King as the favorite right now, especially after Aries and King had that backstage exchange. I could see King becoming new X champ, Aries loses to Roode at the PPV, and Aries comes back to King to claim "what's rightfully mine." Boom, there's an instant feud. As for the Sabin segment, it made me feel bad for Sabin's character, which is probably what they were going for with Roode picking on him. I did think it was a little random to insert Sabin into the Roode-Aries feud, but they made sense of it with Roode continuing his anti-X Division speeches aimed at Aries. That said, it felt a little too much like TNA's past booking of the entire X Division being one, collective unit instead of individual stars, rendering them completely useless individually, but I was overall okay with the execution. All three played their parts well at the end of the day. Did you get a sense that Sabin will be a regular part of storylines going forward, or will he be off TV for a while and he was just used to advance Roode-Aries tonight?

Parks: I think he'll be off TV and this was, as you stated, just a way for Roode to go after Aries via the X Division. In other news, Bully Ray vs. Joseph Park will take place next week, with the added bonus of Ray taking a restraining order out against Abyss. Are you surprised that TNA isn't putting this match on the PPV, especially considering the time they've put into the feud?

Caldwell: I sense they kept it on TV instead of on the PPV since they already booked it at Slammiversary last month and there really isn't an X Division tie-in for Destination X. And, I think they want the largest audience to see the potential blow-off/perhaps a big storyline advancement. Does it feel like the end of the Joseph Park character for Abyss to come back full-time, or do you think J. Park will continue on after next week's match?

Parks: I think it'll continue, but I'm wondering if Ray somehow finds out Park IS Abyss, therefore he refuses to fight him because of the restraining order. That would be a reason to keep it off the PPV as well. Either way, one would think the Park & Abyss situation will be coming to a head sooner rather than later. James, anything else from the show to touch on? Oh, Earl Hebner is Madison Rayne's crush. I was wrong.

Caldwell: *sigh* TNA involving yet another non-wrestler in a storyline. Hopefully they just move on, but I don't think they will. One thing that had some development this week was the Random Thugs re-surfacing with a Mysterious Deck of Cards for Hogan. What did you make of the follow-up and what do you think will be revealed next week?

Parks: As I recently Tweeted, clearly this is X-Pac, Knobbs, Hall, Nash and the like, who Hogan said had to earn their keep or they'd be out of TNA when Hogan first started. They're mad because Hogan kicked them out.

Caldwell: I don't know if I could take another round of that on Thursday nights. We shall see. Greg, one final topic - the TV Title re-surfaced and Crimson took another loss. Is this the start of a losing streak going the opposite way of his faux winning streak?

Parks: It doesn't appear TNA is invested enough in Crimson at this point to even give him a losing streak storyline. Quite the fall for sure.

Caldwell: Very true. All right, Greg, I think that about does it for us this week. What's on top for Gonzo & The Greg this weekend?

Parks: We're going the opposite of last week and presenting the top five worst pre-debut vignettes.

Caldwell: So many to choose from - the difficult part is narrowing it down to five! All right, Greg, we will be back next Thursday with you live on the Livecast to take phone calls and we'll be back right here in the Chat next week. Have a great weekend!

Parks: I look forward to it, James. You have a great weekend as well.

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!