Naganoyama 6,024 Posted January 6, 2004 I would be interested to know a bit more about the allegations of match fixing which often seem to surface in Sumo. Were matches fixed (as far as you know): - to affect who won the Yusho? - to change the promotion/demotion prospects for specific rikishi? - just so that money could 'change hands' due to unexpected wins against the odds Was anyone charged? Was anyone found guilty? Or is it all just rumbling without any specific cause? (Obviously no libel invited, please word responses appropriately) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yoavoshimaru 0 Posted January 6, 2004 The book referenced here might have a lot of information. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yubiquitoyama 4 Posted January 6, 2004 I would be interested to know a bit more about the allegations of match fixing which often seem to surface in Sumo.Were matches fixed (as far as you know): - to affect who won the Yusho? - to change the promotion/demotion prospects for specific rikishi? - just so that money could 'change hands' due to unexpected wins against the odds Was anyone charged? Was anyone found guilty? Or is it all just rumbling without any specific cause? (Obviously no libel invited, please word responses appropriately) For someone outside the sumo community (us...), and I suspect most inside it as well, it is pretty much impossible to know anything about the subject, even as regarding whether it exists at all, or ever have. Those allegations that have been made of late have not really amounted to much and have often simply sounded curious and strange. The only thing most agree with is that the (often thought as mild) form of yaocho that makes it more likely for a 7-7 rikishi to win his last match rather than lose it (likely a practice that does not involve money), exists to quite a large degree. Apart from that, there is pretty much nothing to go on that clearly indicates any kind of yaocho, match fixing or Kyokai intervention. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that there is nothing to go on to decide whether it exists or not. Personally I doubt there is any large-scale match-fixing going around, although I assume individual rikishi or even individual stable on occasions are quilty of more questionable yaocho than the above described form. But who, when, why, how etc is very much kept in the dark, and impossible to substantiate in any way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kotoseiya Yuichi 3 Posted January 6, 2004 The book referenced here might have a lot of information. As far as I'm concerned Weekly Post has never published anything but pure crap. >(Whatever above, it is funny...) They can keep on mixing the Hanada Bros and writing about the incredible adventures of yokozuna Tanakanohana (sic!) as long as they wish for my part... I'm not saying yaocho doesn't exist. All I'm saying the claims and the "proof" offered are ludicrous at best. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kotoseiya Yuichi 3 Posted January 8, 2004 Proof. Proof! PROOF! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yoavoshimaru 0 Posted January 8, 2004 Alright, the suspense is killing me, whose name is commonly raised? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mark Buckton 1 Posted January 8, 2004 Alright, the suspense is killing me, whose name is commonly raised? Found it - http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getart...p20000206mk.htm Makes interesting reading and please do read into the significance of it not having been carried out (press conference) at a Japanese press club. ANR :-P Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yubiquitoyama 4 Posted January 8, 2004 The whole Itai-issue (which was covered for example in Sumo World) makes so little sense that most didn't care about it. Why Akebono would PAY to win against Itai in that match is simply incomprehensible, since Itai sucked badly and was at the tail-end of a not-too-successful career (not winning a match in the thereafter following basho) whereas Akebono was on his way up and ALREADY MAKE-KOSHI. Seriously... Furthermore Itai used the "if you know sumo you can say exactly when a match is fixed"-argument which is seriously ridiculous. Even if there are things in his statements that are true, he managed quite nicely not to reveal any INTERESTING match-fixes, and only named names which were not particularly controversial to name. True or not, we are not exactly talking proofs here... :-P Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mark Buckton 1 Posted January 8, 2004 The whole Itai-issue (which was covered for example in Sumo World) makes so little sense that most didn't care about it. Why Akebono would PAY to win against Itai in that match is simply incomprehensible, since Itai sucked badly and was at the tail-end of a not-too-successful career (not winning a match in the thereafter following basho) whereas Akebono was on his way up and ALREADY MAKE-KOSHI. Seriously...Furthermore Itai used the "if you know sumo you can say exactly when a match is fixed"-argument which is seriously ridiculous. Even if there are things in his statements that are true, he managed quite nicely not to reveal any INTERESTING match-fixes, and only named names which were not particularly controversial to name. True or not, we are not exactly talking proofs here... :-P Furthermore Itai used the "if you know sumo you can say exactly when a match is fixed"-argument which is seriously ridiculous. Because...............? :-P ANR Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yubiquitoyama 4 Posted January 8, 2004 (edited) The whole Itai-issue (which was covered for example in Sumo World) makes so little sense that most didn't care about it. Why Akebono would PAY to win against Itai in that match is simply incomprehensible, since Itai sucked badly and was at the tail-end of a not-too-successful career (not winning a match in the thereafter following basho) whereas Akebono was on his way up and ALREADY MAKE-KOSHI. Seriously...Furthermore Itai used the "if you know sumo you can say exactly when a match is fixed"-argument which is seriously ridiculous. Even if there are things in his statements that are true, he managed quite nicely not to reveal any INTERESTING match-fixes, and only named names which were not particularly controversial to name. True or not, we are not exactly talking proofs here... :-P Furthermore Itai used the "if you know sumo you can say exactly when a match is fixed"-argument which is seriously ridiculous. Because...............? :-P ANR There are quite many who claim they can see when a match is fixed. However, it seems they don't always see the same matches being fixed. So apparently they are not all right. Then you could say that only those who are right knows sumo well enough. But how do I know who is the one who is right in this, since so many who are NOT right THINK they know sumo enough? Because of this the statement loses all meaning since it doesn't provide extra information. Especially since not even the people who themselves think they know sumo enough necessarily do and therefore can be wrong about their match-fixing guesses, including Itai. Edited January 8, 2004 by Yubiquitoyama Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mark Buckton 1 Posted January 8, 2004 ""There are quite many who claim they can see when a match is fixed. However, it seems they don't always see the same matches being fixed. So apparently they are not all right. Then you could say that only those who are right knows sumo well enough. But how do I know who is the one who is right in this, since so many who are NOT right THINK they know sumo enough? Because of this the statement loses all meaning since it doesn't provide extra information. Especially since not even the people who themselves think they know sumo enough necessarily do and therefore can be wrong about their match-fixing guesses, including Itai. "" Bit smoky with some mirrors thrown in I think but interesting nonetheless. Did you read the book you refer to as I know you commented on it some time back on the SML? ANR Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yubiquitoyama 4 Posted January 8, 2004 ""There are quite many who claim they can see when a match is fixed. However, it seems they don't always see the same matches being fixed. So apparently they are not all right. Then you could say that only those who are right knows sumo well enough. But how do I know who is the one who is right in this, since so many who are NOT right THINK they know sumo enough? Because of this the statement loses all meaning since it doesn't provide extra information. Especially since not even the people who themselves think they know sumo enough necessarily do and therefore can be wrong about their match-fixing guesses, including Itai. "" Bit smoky with some mirrors thrown in I think but interesting nonetheless. Did you read the book you refer to as I know you commented on it some time back on the SML? ANR If there is any smoke and mirrors involved, it's not me but Itai who uses them. I have not referred to any book in my posts above. What do you mean? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mark Buckton 1 Posted January 8, 2004 Your comments here - http://www.banzuke.com/99-5/msg00325.html are a direct reply to (the previous) (a) post on 'THAT' book on the whole subject of which Itai plays but the most recent part. ANR. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mark Buckton 1 Posted January 8, 2004 Man, the pollution of even the insinuation of cheating gets me. For this reason, my previous posts have gone and I have had a change of heart (sorry Zenji-san but if we ever meet....) Shouldn't have played any part and I'd rather keep the ideals of sumo within rather than the accusations which, facing reality - none of us will ever (fully) know. ANR :-P Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
