Whatever Happened to Good Guys Making the Save?

Wouldn't this have been better if, say, Sheamus made the save?
Photo Credit: WWE.com

I hate being "that guy", the fan or writer who's always comparing wrestling now to how it was "in the good ol' days". I love wrestling how it is now, and I don't want to see it go all the way back to what it was back then. That being said, there are things from back in the day that would port so well right now. I was reminded of one of them Monday night during the aftermath to the Wade Barrett/Randy Orton match. In the past, that might have led to someone making the save, but Monday, no one was found to come out of the back. This isn't new. The art of the run-in save has been slowly lost over the years.

Why has this art been lost? Obviously, the disintegration of the stable and the changing role of good guys in WWE are two big reasons. We know a lot about the former, but the latter is a thing that I don't necessarily think is something that should discourage this kind of thing. Granted, the lineage of anti-heroes started with Steve Austin, but even he didn't have a heart that was two sizes too small. The most famous example was him saving Stephanie McMahon from the Undertaker's bizarre kidnapping and ritual sacrifice on RAW. Still, that started the path of good guys who had a lot of villainous tendencies. Let's face it, guys like Orton, CM Punk and Big Show aren't role models. I'm not sure I'd want them to be either, as they have characters that work, that the fans gravitate to. There are no more faces and heels as we traditionally define them, and to me, that's okay.

That being said, as the paradigms of what makes someone appealing to a prospective fan change, one thing really shouldn't. Good guys get each other's backs, while the bad guys jump people from behind, sometimes with numbers. No matter what passes for a code of honor in any culture, no matter what other things distinguish a character, there's still honor in a fair fight. Unless WWE is really trying to appeal to nothing but edgy loners (and with the beginning and ending of RAW on the same show, it's clear they're not), then it's a no-brainer to promote friendship. I know I love it when I see guys I like helping each other out.

Plus, it adds to the booking options. Rather than trotting out Orton and Barrett seemingly twice a week, three times if there's a pay-per-view, it allows for tag team matches to come about. I don't know about anyone else, but I fucking love tag team matches. Why else have I been clamoring for a stronger tag division ever since I started writing this blog? I love variety, and most fans do too. I wrote a big post about rules of booking, and I feel like it rings true even now. Sidenote, it's unfortunate that I pulled this post up and found a picture of accused pedophile Bill Conlin. If the accusations are true, then I hope they throw the book at this monster. Ugh.

Anyway, back to the post, the tenor of the linked rules is that variety is the spice of life, and that people want to see different twinges on something familiar. Tag matches help that, and furthermore, they help foster the idea that friendship is cool, even to pro wrestlers. It all starts with a save, which I might add, still pops a crowd like almost nothing else. Last time I checked, crowd reactions are good things.

There aren't a whole lot of things from the good ol' days that I think should come back en masse, but the babyface save is one of them. I also wouldn't want to see them happen in every segment, but hey, seeing them pop up a couple of times a month wouldn't be that bad. It'd help distinguish the good guys from the bad in a traditional and an easier way, and I think it would make for a better viewing experience.

Plus, it'd make it a lot more stark and a better character trope when Kane would kick the ever loving shit out of John Cena and no one came to save him... right?