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

It seems clear that Charles would have been champion if Ring magazine’s championship policy had been in place at the time, whether it be the current policy or the original 2002 one.

However, at the time they thought that a #1 vs #2 fight was not in itself enough to crown a new champion, and that a new champion should also have established themselves as the best against champions from other countries.

This indicates that the policy they introduced in 2002 was not actually a good reflection of their previous methods, and represented a change of heart compared to Nat’s way of doing things.

 

I’ve found this report in the Scotsman newspaper of the Savold-Woodcock bout:

“It was a bad cut which ended the contest and Woodcock, as game as he was, would have been foolish to think of continuing under such a severe handicap. He had to have three stitches inserted above his eye. Savold took his victory as calmly as he had taken the fight but Bill Daly, his manager, jumped into the air, swung his arms round his neck and hung on lovingly.
Savold was presented with a Silver Globe by Mr J. O. Fene, chairman ot the Boxing Board of Control, as the new world champion.
Mr Nat Fleicher, the well-known American boxing authority, who was at the ringside, said "'I expected Savold to win just like that, and now he can be regarded as very high up indeed in the world heavy-weight class . He is not however, as far as we in America are concerned, the world champion until he has a fight with at least another leading American.””