Why was Charles vs. Walcott 1 not for the Ring belt?

Maybe, and it's just a guess, the Ring Magazine believed that Louis wasn't serious about his retirement and would come back?
It obviously worked out alright, Charles beats Louis and becomes ring mag champ.
It's a bit of the old, man who beat the man who....

 

It was a confusing time.

Joe Louis basically sold his "title" to the International Boxing Club (which was like the PBC or Matchroom of its day, only more powerfull, because in addition to TV deals, actually owned arenas where fights were held, too). For payment, Louis was added as a co-promoter of the IBC's vacant title fight between Walcott and Charles.

Making Louis a co-promoter was intended to give the vacant title fight validity.

The IBC was trying to grab total control over the sport. The National Boxing Association (which later become the World Boxing Association) was aligning with them.

At the same time, the British Boxing Board of Control was trying to hold on to what influence they had. England had a top heavyweight named Bruce Woodcock. They thought he should challenge for the vacant title.

But the IBC went ahead with Walcott-Charles in 1949, even though Europe and the NYSAC didn't really recognize Charles as the champion.

Where Charles and Woodcock were "new faces" on the heavyweight scene, Walcott was not. I'm sure Ring would've been embarrassed to name Walcott its champ if he won and there was a question if Louis was going to return.

Louis had just beaten Walcott twice. Many thought Louis just wanted a break after being champion for 11+ years. Plus, he needed money to pay his back taxes. And he was still fighting exhibitions around the country.

And many at the time, including Ring, thought Louis was biding his time waiting for a new viable contender to emerge.

When it was rumored Louis was coming back in 1950, the BBBC made its move and staged a vacant title fight between Woodcock and an American veteran Lee Savold.

The hope, apparently, was if Woodcock won, Louis might fight their champion.

So Ring waited to see how it played out.

And it played out quickly. Everyone expected Woodcock to beat Savold. Woodcock lost. So Charles was recognized as champ in the US. Savold as champ in the UK.

What would've been interesting was what would've happened if Louis beat Charles in 1950?

Would most people today just view 1949 as a year Louis didn't defend his title?

Would Charles be considered an actual heavyweight champ at all, like no one considers Savold a heavyweight champ.

Or what would've happened if Woodcock had won and it was Louis vs. Woodcock first, or if Louis fought Lee Savold in his first fight back (before Charles) and knocked him off, which Louis did in 1951 when he stopped Savold?

Would that win be seen as a continuation of Joe's reign?

Because after Woodcock lost to Savold, and Charles beat Louis, the BBBC just sort of pretended they never recognized Savold at all. Especially after Joe knocked out Savold after Joe had lost to Charles.

Would the NYSAC, British Boxing Board of Control and others have done the same and just pretended Charles was never champion, since they didn't recognize his reign before Louis anyway? Would he have just been seen as a paper (WBA) champ today, like John Tate?

 

Dubblechin has it.

Nat Fleischer thought that with a title vacancy there should have been an international elimination tournament. I think he had a good point. Charles and Walcott were the two best contenders, but one of them should have fought Woodcock and the other Savold in the semis.

It was certainly American arrogance to simply name the two top Americans to fight.

Had Woodcock defeated Savold, a match between him and Charles to settle things would have been likely.

 

you missed one thing. The BBBC continued to recognize Savold until the Louis-Savold fight. When Louis knocked out savold, they recognized Charles rather than Louis since charles had beaten Louis the previous year

Savold like it or not, has legitimate claim to alphabet soup world title

 

It's difficult to keep track.

Today, if a sanctioning body recognized Lee Savold as champ after beating Woodock and Louis beat Savold a year after Joe lost to Charles, the sanctioning body would go ahead and recognize Louis as their champ.

And Joe Louis would go down as a "two-time heavyweight champ."

The org wouldn't say "Louis already lost to Charles so nevermind."

I guess they had more common sense back then.

 

Well, like I said, maybe they had more common sense back then.

Savold didn't have "legitimate" claim to anything, other than a win over Bruce Woodcock, who hadn't won anything either.

 

I doubt the BBBC had a lot of clout or widespread recognition as far as choosing world champs, especially at heavyweight. Given the UK’s lack of producing true championship-caliber big men probably most of the rest of the world just shrugged.

There were various versions of heavyweight titles over the years. I think Archie Moore had a ‘world heavyweight title’ recognized in like Nevada or Arizona at some point.

As for The Ring withholding recognition of the Charles-Walcott winner, I think the post above about wanting an elimination tournament was the sticking point. And perhaps in there was some doubt about Joe sticking to his retirement.

I mean, Tyson Fury says he has retired but nobody to my knowledge has quite yet stopped recognizing him.

 

The UK public did not take the BBBOC's claim seriously

 

he had as much claim to a belt as any of the 80s alphabet soup champions

deal with it

 

cyberboxing lists savold as world title holder under champions

 

Deal with what? Unlike the 80s 'alphabet' champs, there was no BBBC belt. Savold was never presented with any belt. Louis never won any belt when he beat Savold. It was never passed around.

The BBBC planned to name Woodcock as champ when he beat Savold. But Woodcock lost and it blew up in their faces. And that was kinda it. There was no belt to defend. When Louis beat Savold, Louis wasn't presented a belt. The BBBC didn't recognize Louis as their new champ. Louis didn't call himself the new champ. Rocky Marciano wasn't named the new champ when he beat Louis. There was as nothing like that.

The BBBC just backtracked and recognized Charles along with everyone else. You tend to have to be presented with A BELT to be an actual BELTHOLDER. The BBBC recognized it was a bad idea, and changed its mind.

Savold was a "champ" like Monte Masters was a champion.