Yeah, I was a loyal NWA fan through the 80's, and I remember this point in time very clearly. No disrespect meant for Garvin fans here, but he should not have been the champion. He wasn't very popular, and its obvious NWA didn't take his title run seriously(neither did fans). At Starcade, Flair had more cheers than Garvin, and Flair was the heel.
 
In my opinion, either Flair never should've lost the belt at that moment in  time, or he should've lost it to Nikita Koloff(he ALWAYS deserved at least a short world title reign), or even a mid carder like Windham, Steve Williams,etc.

I wasn't complaining about Ronnie being champion.I enjoyed both the Sept and Nov championship matches between Ronnie and Ric.I just questioned they way the office handled his near 3 month title reign leading into Starcade-they had zero buildup for Garvin..even though he was going into the match as champion.Ronnie Garvin's title victory over Flair was cool to me because I was 14 years old when I saw it and I still had a sense of"belief" in professional wrestling.Now looking back and getting alot smarter to the business I still think putting the strap on Ronnie was a good move-just for shock value.And since you brought it up-I am a BIG Barry Whindham mark.He definatley deserved the world title-whether he was cheered in matches with Flair or not.

When Garvin was in with Flair, he really looked like a great worker. Those matches between them were excellent. Unfortunately, Garvin never looked as good against anyone else. He was solid, but I think the worst part of him being champion is simply because in 1987, one company has Hulk Hogan and the other has Ronnie Garvin. The casual fan would consider that a joke comparison, and really, it was (even though Garvin was better in the ring than the Huckster, the 5'10' Barney Rubble look-a-like who had been an upper mid-card and occasional main event guy for years, was going to look weak compared to the rival company's top face). Garvin is a guy that should have been a challenger, but should not have held the belt.

One thing to consider here is this, from all that I've heard and read about the situation Flair wanted to lose the title and get it back at Starrcade. Remember he hadn't won the title at Starrcade since '83. He was always defending, so this put him in the challenger's role. Plus, I could be mistaken, but I think he wanted some time off between September and November. Not much time, just not the rigors of working every night. But I could be wrong on that point.
 
But I do know he wanted to drop the strap and get it back at the Granddaddy of them all.

I also tend to think Ronnie Garvin's credability as a wrestler was never taken seriously by the fans beacuse his trademark finishing move was a right hand punch.Any of you old schoolers tend to agree with me on this?

Now looking back I think Ronnie Garvin's stint in WWF didn't pan out that well due to his lack of a look.Back in that time all of the boys had a certain prescence to them.No disrespect to Ronnie Garvin but he didn't have one.It was a shame that he was put in that ridiculous feud with Greg Valentine.Well the feud itself wasn't bad it was justt the basis of the feud-wrestler turned refereee.I almost forgot how good the 1990 Royal Rumble submission match was between Garvin and Valentine.Now it wasn't up to Steamboat/Flair standards but if you don't believe me go out sometime and rent it.That was the last big match Ronnie Garvin won in WWF-he then moved on to putting over Earthquake and Sgt Slaughter.If I worked in the office back in the day as one of the writers.I would have put Ronnie Garvin and Greg Valentine together as a tag teamfollowing their feud.That would have spared us Rhythm and Blues and I think we would have had one heck of a tag team.

I was alwaysa  huge Ronnie Garvin fan. His matches with Ric Flaie in late '85 early '86 were some of my all time favorites. They packed the Omni for quite a few months with that as the headliner. When he won the NWA Tile I thought he was credible in that slot. However, some bad booking made him look bad. He should have been built up as a really credible champion by defending the title against a variety of guys. They could have put him on television defending against say Ivan Koloff, Black Bart, Big Bubba Rogers, Barbarian, Eddie Gilbert, Terry Taylor, Arn Anderson, Tully Blanchard, and others. WWF did the same thing in 1992 when Bret Hart won their title. He wrestled different mid card-upper mid card guys each week as the announcers talked about what a hard working champion he was that would take on all comers.   That would have saved Flair remathces for the house shows and not given away the Starrcade main event on TV. They did a few matches with Garvin on TV but they never really got behind him like they should have.

Quote from gmrich on May 9^th, 2007, 8:02am:

 
Agreed.

I never "got" Garvin's run as champ. I mean I'm fine with rewarding a lifelong hard (and good) worker and all that, but, c'mon....Barry Windham was RIGHT THERE.

It was that 'old school' NWA thinking. Just like Crockett thought he could do no wrong because he had Dusty on top (and with the book), because historically he was a guaranteed-draw NWA babyface, and it was like that was just set in stone....with that line of thinking, you can see why Crockett thought Garvin acceptable as a short-term world champ for a 3 month 'hot potato' run: he was over, the fans respected him, he was an established name who had been a star in the southeast for nearly 20 years....and the fans bought him as being a legit tough guy....all the hallmarks of what had historically worked as an NWA champion. The problem is: the game had completely changed in the previous two years. There had been a decline/repetition in the JCP product - ratings & attendence were down in the second-half of '87. The one saving grace was Flair - you couldn't kill him, people wanted to see him & hate him.  
 
I thought Garvin historically was a great opponent for Flair - I LOVE their matches. The problem is....Garvin/Flair had already been done (like Nikita/Flair, Dusty/Flair) and worse, Garvin was a distant 4th or 5th babyface behind Dusty, Nikita, Windham, the Roadwarriors, and so from a 'marquee' perspective it was just the wrong dynamic at a time when business was declining and they REALLY needed to put across a superior, more exciting wrestling product. Garvin was old, looked old, unathletic, and in a time when the wrestling fan had been spoilt by some of the best personalities in history, in an era where personalities and promos had been amped up more than ever, Garvin had little charisma compared to the accepted top guy standards of the day. I would have at least gone with Nikita, as he was over in the kind of way that fans would really be into a short term title reign.
 
There is no doubt that it adversely affected business, and the credibility of the product immensely. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in a recent history piece Meltzer says that the show where Garvin won the belt in Detroit did record business with a sellout of 12,000 (iirc)....when they went back to capitalize on the huge business a month later, they did some ridiculous drop like only 500 paid.
 
Whilst there is a disparity in talent, its a bit like if Brutus Beefcake beat Savage for the WWF title at WM V instead of Hogan....