The first Yokozuna

[Mark Buckton 1]

One book, now forgotton by ANR claims the first 4 yokozuna were appointed thus posthumously.

Sharnoff's book has dates of appointments for #'s 3 / 4 / 5. - all within their lifetime IIRC.

The NSK staff claim #6 (Oonomatsu Midorinosuke from Ishikawa) to be the first 'living' yokozuna and ANR now has a list of heights / weights / promotion to Y and intai dates - courtesy of NSK.

Many different from those I have seen published in English - Q's boys or girls let me know - but to save me time please post the number Y they were - some of this old kanji is horribly difficult. :-/

[Yubiquitoyama 4]

As far as I understand there is little doubt that yokozunas 4 and 5, Tanikaze and Onogawa were appointed while living. There are numerous woodblock prints from their joint elevation available since it was during the same era sumo prints were at its first height.

The story goes that nr 3 Maruyama died on his way through Japan when going to accept his Yokozuna elevation, so strictly speaking he would also be posthumous.

Most of the dates you have should be the same as on my (nowadays sadly unupdated) yokozunalist

http://w1.858.telia.com/%7Eu85811045/yokozuna.htm

Edited July 25, 2004 by Yubiquitoyama

[Mark Buckton 1]

As far as I understand there is little doubt that yokozunas 4 and 5, Tanikaze and Onogawa were appointed while living. There are numerous woodblock prints from their joint elevation available since it was during the same era sumo prints were at its first height.

The story goes that nr 3 Maruyama died on his way through Japan when going to accept his Yokozuna elevation, so strictly speaking he would also be posthumous.

Most of the dates you have should be the same as on my (nowadays sadly unupdated) yokozunalist

http://w1.858.telia.com/%7Eu85811045/yokozuna.htm

I didn't know about the woodblocks - interesting that one. That said I do know of woodblocks accepted as 'fact' by Japanese that show almost completely fictional events now (not meaning the 2 Y's) such as the famous 47 Samurai tale being an event in which only 45 died by their own hand. 1 never made it to the show and another, not being of the samurai rank was shamed into living whilst his buds died.

Still, they don't let anything get in the way of a good story - have 47 graves in Minato-ku to pull in the tourists. Sengaku-ji I think.

According to the form - Maruyama has no known confirmed last basho (saishu basho) although wt / ht were listed as 197cm / 160kg. Also the Tochigi origins of 1 and 2 are not confirmed fully by this H15 form and multiple points differ with English versions on the net - mainly around shoushin basho and also saishu basho info - even into the 1970s and 1980s I think.

EDIT - A lot of differences I'm afraid - mostly on the shoushin and saishu basho info - sometimes 7 months apart are dates on the 2 lists. Will think of a way to get this info available to you.

Edited July 25, 2004 by Adachinoryu

[Yubiquitoyama 4]

EDIT - A lot of differences I'm afraid - mostly on the shoushin and saishu basho info - sometimes 7 months apart are dates on the 2 lists.

Edited July 25, 2004 by Yubiquitoyama

[Chienoshima 0]

EDIT - A lot of differences I'm afraid - mostly on the shoushin and saishu basho info - sometimes 7 months apart are dates on the 2 lists.

[Mark Buckton 1]

Note that the list above does NOT indicate first and last basho as Yokozuna but actual date of yokozuna promotion or retirement. As such I'm rather confident in its accuracy, so please list the differences here on the forum if they are flagrantly obvious. As for shusshin I suspect the most differences would be for pre-1868 yokozunas since I have listed current day prefectures, but please list it here on the forum.

Yubi - I'll give this a go.

Your list DOES list last basho in the sense that the NSK also terms many of their 'saishu basho' with the same dates.

On the 'shoushin basho' which I would term 'first basho at rank' ( I have confirmed this with every day of their career records of 3 yokozuna) - on this section the NSK is usually 2 months later than your dates in the moder 6 a year era and differing numbers of months ahead in other times.

A few bigger points though - Y (Yubi) N (NSK) (6) - number Yokozuna

(6) - Y has the promotion at 1828 Feb but his first N registers first basho at top rank was 1827 March.

(7) - N registers 1828 Oct as first basho at rank - Y has 1830 Sep as promotion with (1828 Jun) also there. I didn't understand this date in brackets.

(12) - N registers his first ranked basho as 1867 April - Y has 1867 Oct as date of promotion.

there are many more but generally - the NSK registers dates at first basho aas Yokozuna which should, theoretically always come after the promotion.

This pattern is seen throughout with a few areas it seems confusing.

Retirement is generally the same but N registers Miyagiyama (29) as last basho active 2 months before Y's retirement and Tsunenohana's (31) as 5 months earlier. Also, on Tsunenohan - his first basho at rank was 1924 May on their paper - Y has 1924 Feb.

I'll type more when I get time

[Naganoyama 6,022]

Note that the list above does NOT indicate first and last basho as Yokozuna but actual date of yokozuna promotion or retirement. As such I'm rather confident in its accuracy, so please list the differences here on the forum if they are flagrantly obvious. As for shusshin I suspect the most differences would be for pre-1868 yokozunas since I have listed current day prefectures, but please list it here on the forum.

Yubi - I'll give this a go.

Your list DOES list last basho in the sense that the NSK also terms many of their 'saishu basho' with the same dates.

On the 'shoushin basho' which I would term 'first basho at rank' ( I have confirmed this with every day of their career records of 3 yokozuna) - on this section the NSK is usually 2 months later than your dates in the moder 6 a year era and differing numbers of months ahead in other times.

A few bigger points though - Y (Yubi) N (NSK) (6) - number Yokozuna

(6) - Y has the promotion at 1828 Feb but his first N registers first basho at top rank was 1827 March.

(7) - N registers 1828 Oct as first basho at rank - Y has 1830 Sep as promotion with (1828 Jun) also there. I didn't understand this date in brackets.

(12) - N registers his first ranked basho as 1867 April - Y has 1867 Oct as date of promotion.

there are many more but generally - the NSK registers dates at first basho aas Yokozuna which should, theoretically always come after the promotion.

This pattern is seen throughout with a few areas it seems confusing.

Retirement is generally the same but N registers Miyagiyama (29) as last basho active 2 months before Y's retirement and Tsunenohana's (31) as 5 months earlier. Also, on Tsunenohan - his first basho at rank was 1924 May on their paper - Y has 1924 Feb.

I'll type more when I get time

This would be good tabulated. Perhaps easier to read, particularly if you expand it.

[Yubiquitoyama 4]

Let's try this one more time:

I do NOT have the "first basho as Yokozuna" in the column called "Promotion", but the month or date of the ACTUAL PROMOTION. In most cases that will mean a two month difference from a list which lists the first basho as Yokozuna, since a promotion generally takes place right after a concluded basho. The same goes for "retirement" where I list the month or date of ACTUAL RETIREMENT. This can in some cases come later or even earlier than the month in which the rikishi in question was last on the banzuke. It is fully possible to question my decision to have the actual promotion and demotion dates, and I have not used that in any other lists on my website, but please keep this in mind when pointing out errors.

As for the double dates of yokozunas 7 and 8, I don't have the full story on me right now, but basically the Yokozuna elevation was not approved by everyone the first date. I frankly don't remember the full story but I can probably check it up.

As for number 6, there seems to be two dates around, one of which I have used. I suspect that is for similar reasons as the two dates of number 6 and 7. Again, I'll see what I can find out about that when I get home.

Edited July 26, 2004 by Yubiquitoyama

[Mark Buckton 1]

Let's try this one more time:

I do NOT have the "first basho as Yokozuna" in the column called "Promotion", but the month or date of the ACTUAL PROMOTION. In most cases that will mean a two month difference from a list which lists the first basho as Yokozuna, since a promotion generally takes place right after a concluded basho. The same goes for "retirement" where I list the month or date of ACTUAL RETIREMENT. This can in some cases come later or even earlier than the month in which the rikishi in question was last on the banzuke. It is fully possible to question my decision to have the actual promotion and demotion dates, and I have not used that in any other lists on my website, but please keep this in mind when pointing out errors.

As for the double dates of yokozunas 7 and 8, I don't have the full story on me right now, but basically the Yokozuna elevation was not approved by everyone the first date. I frankly don't remember the full story but I can probably check it up.

As for number 6, there seems to be two dates around, one of which I have used. I suspect that is for similar reasons as the two dates of number 6 and 7. Again, I'll see what I can find out about that when I get home.

Will wait to see what you say then as it is pretty interesting -this historical detective work. :-P :-)

On the actual dates you mention (promotion in particular) I just glanced through the first 36 Yokozuna and found 7 differences with what I understand to be a promotion (not first basho at rank) list based on that of the NSK.

Biggest difference was (9) Hidenoyama who my papers say was actually promoted Sept 1845 and served his first basho at rank in Nov 1845.

Supported here it would seem - see note at bottom:

http://www.banzuke.com/banzuke/b184503.html

You have 1847 Sept.

Whilst his (9) retirement as listed by yourself matches the last basho at rank only 8 of the total retirement dates for all Yokozuna on your list do not match the last basho at rank dates. Looks like they step right off and retire. All have turbulent times or personal crises about the time of disputed retirement dats to fall back on which will lead to confusion of course.

Oh to have the time to type. (Sigh...)

[Yubiquitoyama 4]

On the actual dates you mention (promotion in particular) I just glanced through the first 36 Yokozuna and found 7 differences with what I understand to be a promotion (not first basho at rank) list based on that of the NSK.

Biggest difference was (9) Hidenoyama who my papers say was actually promoted Sept 1845 and served his first basho at rank in Nov 1845.

Supported here it would seem - see note at bottom:

http://www.banzuke.com/banzuke/b184503.html

You have 1847 Sept.

Whilst his (9) retirement as listed by yourself matches the last basho at rank only 8 of the total retirement dates for all Yokozuna on your list do not match the last basho at rank dates. Looks like they step right off and retire. All have turbulent times or personal crises about the time of disputed retirement dats to fall back on which will lead to confusion of course.

Most yokozunas have retired right after a basho. That's pretty natural.

As for Hidenoyama, I haven't seen 1845 listed anywhere before (except that banzuke.com note), but it is likely another example of two different license dates as for yokozunas 6,7 and 8. Banzuke.com is not consistent either:

http://www.banzuke.com/banzuke/b184703.html

[Mark Buckton 1]

Most yokozunas have retired right after a basho. That's pretty natural.

As for Hidenoyama, I haven't seen 1845 listed anywhere before (except that banzuke.com note), but it is likely another example of two different license dates as for yokozunas 6,7 and 8. Banzuke.com is not consistent either:

http://www.banzuke.com/banzuke/b184703.html

The 1845 date is that on the NSK 's files. Also features in Sharnoff's book.

Good point on banzuke.com - good spot there.

On that, as a side note, one thing I always noticed is that Makunouchi is / was much bigger in those years - I have several copies of Edo & Meiji era banzuke - and there were usually double the sekitori listed.

Lots of shikona changes go unmentioned too.

On Tsunenohana though, I think this one is indisputable:

NSK have him last competing in May 1930 which has also got to be the best date of his retirement: http://www.juryo.com/newspaper/19300524.htm

Nothing mentioned in the media for October of that year.

Anyway, Yubi - when you get home (you said you were away now)you will get some info on those Juryo men you needed - also one slight change on a shikona.

:-P

[Yubiquitoyama 4]

On Tsunenohana though, I think this one is indisputable:

NSK have him last competing in May 1930 which has also got to be the best date of his retirement:  http://www.juryo.com/newspaper/19300524.htm 

Nothing mentioned in the media for October of that year.

Anyway, Yubi - when you get home (you said you were away now)you will get some info on those Juryo men you needed - also one slight change on a shikona.

:-)

I agree on Tsunenohana that his actual retirement was in May 1930 (apparently in a then unprecedented way on the radio) and I probably ought to change that. My problem, and no doubt the reason for having 1930.10 in the first place, is that the banzukes, as far as I understand, at that time held for two bashos, in this case 1930.05 and 1930.10, so that strictly speaking he was still on the banzuke 1930.10. It does feel a bit strange to have someone as retired before a basho in which he was ranked on the banzuke, even on a yokozuna list... :-P

Thanks for the Juryo info btw (Sign of approval)

Edited July 26, 2004 by Yubiquitoyama

[Mark Buckton 1]

On Tsunenohana though, I think this one is indisputable:

NSK have him last competing in May 1930 which has also got to be the best date of his retirement:  http://www.juryo.com/newspaper/19300524.htm 

Nothing mentioned in the media for October of that year.

Anyway, Yubi - when you get home (you said you were away now)you will get some info on those Juryo men you needed - also one slight change on a shikona.

:-)

I agree on Tsunenohana that his actual retirement was in May 1930 (apparently in a then unprecedented way on the radio) and I probably ought to change that. My problem, and no doubt the reason for having 1930.10 in the first place, is that the banzukes, as far as I understand, at that time held for two bashos, in this case 1930.05 and 1930.10, so that strictly speaking he was still on the banzuke 1930.10. It does feel a bit strange to have someone as retired before a basho in which he was ranked on the banzuke, even on a yokozuna list... :-P

Thanks for the Juryo info btw (Sign of approval)

Tsunenohana confusion not helped by this I just found:

http://www.juryo.com/newspaper/19300917.htm

Never do it simple do they?

On Juryo - don't be too grateful till you see it. Not all encompassing - will get other info as it becomes OK to do so. 3 guys covered IIRC

[Mark Buckton 1]

Hunting around Juryo.com (bloody good site if the owner is reading) and I found this on Miyagiyama (29)

http://www.juryo.com/newspaper/19310120.htm

so looks like he retired in Jan 1931 instead of March 1931. Nothing else here in March 1931.

Also - Umegatani's II promotion (you know I like this guy) shows a ceremony as being held Oct 31 1903 (a Sunday) - jointly with Hitachiyama - interestingly H is listed as 19 and UII as 20th. This is about 4 months after your date and 2.5 before first basho in rank as listed by NSK. Still - is a ceremony but nothing else covered therein or thereabouts.

http://www.juryo.com/newspaper/1900/19031103.htm

[Yubiquitoyama 4]

Hunting around Juryo.com (bloody good site if the owner is reading) and I found this on Miyagiyama (29)

http://www.juryo.com/newspaper/19310120.htm

so looks like he retired in Jan 1931 instead of March 1931.

Edited July 27, 2004 by Yubiquitoyama

[Gernobono 467]

unfortunatelly i break the ping-pong order of your postings but i have to add that i find your discussion interesting and educating. although the facts are sometimes too in-depth for me

[Mark Buckton 1]

As for Umegatani and Hatachiyama, the promotion would always be earlier than the actual ceremony. The only importance is that the ceremony comes before the following basho which it does in this case too. Banzuke.com supports my 1903.06 promotion month.

When two yokozunas are simultaneously promoted, the numbering is decided by their retirement date. The earlier number goes to the yokozuna who retires first.

Never knew that about joint promotion / retirement so appreciate the info. (Applauding...)

Glad you like it Gernobono-san. In depth for me too but keeps the brain active!

[Mark Buckton 1]

I agree, there is no doubt that Tanikaze and Onogawa were promoted to yokozuna while being alive.

When I wrote my article on the legendary ozeki Raiden Tame'emon (still available in english here : Raiden Tame'emon, a living legend ), I found an amazing number of woodblocks on Tanikaze and Onogawa. Actually, Tanikaze seem to be more popular than Raiden himself !!

Here is a picture of a tsuna, used by yokozuna Tanikaze : 

Chienoshima

Been mulling this over and I have an idea - a theory - call it what you will.

Tanikaze and Onogawa WERE promoted at the same time but they were promoted to hinoshita kaisan. It is documented they received a yokozuna (the tsuna 'belt') as a ceremonial garment.

However, as this was documented as being the start of such an award - any issuing of the same 'after the fact award' to 1 / 2 /3 WOULD be posthumous - so #3 travelling to receive his promotion and dying on the way seems confusing as he died 40 years before this award was first established (recorded as autumn 1789)

So, to terminology - perhaps the Japanese reason (NSK I mentioned before) as perhaps indicating Tanikaze and Onogawa were also posthumous was simply that hinoshita kaisan DOES NOT equal yokozuna until much later and only then were they 'upgraded' to yokozuna status - by then posthumously. Onomatsu (6) appeared another 40 decades later when hinoshita was giving way to 'yokozuna' - the term initially for the belt only so was perhaps the first 'true' yokozuna as we know it today but it is our applying today's ideals and beliefs to days now lost that causes the confusion.

http://www.sumoforum.net/glossary.html

Edited July 28, 2004 by Adachinoryu

[Yubiquitoyama 4]

I agree there is something missing in all of this, but I don

Edited July 28, 2004 by Yubiquitoyama

[Mark Buckton 1]

What does not fit for me is that when reading the history one does get the feeling the Yokozuna concept was NOT new when Tanikaze and Onogawa were licensed (such as there being disappointment in Tanikaze not being licensed), so therefore it seems strange to me that they COULD be the first ones. This does not have to be an indication of anything, but it is an observation. Furthermore I think I have read that the existance of Ayagawa and Maruyama (as opposed to Akashi) is not really in doubt; just them supposedly being granted yokozuna licenses.

Yubi-san,

do you mean 'Raiden' here? (disappointment phrase)

Developed this overall idea having read an historical book of Tokyo's buildings funny enough - sumo (using buildings of note) was mentioned as was the ceremony - autumn 1789.

Interesting comments though so more to mull over on a typhoon stricken Thursday in Tokyo.

Maruyama's existence - not in doubt for me really - first two got a shoulder shrug from the aforementioned info provider within the halls of power.

The case continues.

PS - can't remember fully the book doubting the first few as yokozuna - was it Shapiro's 'pocket book'???

[Yubiquitoyama 4]

do you mean 'Raiden' here?  (disappointment phrase)

Maruyama's existence - not in doubt for me really - first two got a shoulder shrug from the aforementioned info provider within the halls of power.

PS - can't remember fully the book doubting the first few as yokozuna - was it Shapiro's 'pocket book'???

No, I did mean Tanikaze (who had been outstanding for some time when finally licensed Yokozuna), which was the reason it sounds strange that he would be the first. I read somewhere (I think it is mentioned in Lawrence Bickford

Edited July 28, 2004 by Yubiquitoyama

[Mark Buckton 1]

Minor but for those following the thread -

Yokuzuna in History

The birth of the rank of yokozuna is unclear, and there are two competing legends. According to one, a 9th-century wrestler named Hajikami tied a shimenawa around his waist as a handicap and dared any to touch it, creating sumo as we know it in the process. According to the other, legendary wrestler Akashi Shiganosuke tied the shimenawa around his waist in 1630 as a sign of respect when visiting the Emperor, and was posthumously awarded the title for the first time. There is little supporting evidence for either theory -- in fact, it is not even certain that Akashi was a historical figure -- but it is known that by 1789, yokozuna starting from Tanikaze Kajinosuke were depicted in ukiyo-e prints as wearing the shimenawa.

As of January 2004, there have been a grand total of 68 yokozuna, although formal recordkeeping only started with Tanikaze in 1789.

Found it on an interesting encyclopedia site of sorts. http://www.free-definition.com/List-of-Yokozuna.html

Same site also dates (1)'s promotion as 1624 but doubts (2)'s origins as being Tochigi.

The soup thickens! :-P

Edited July 29, 2004 by Adachinoryu

[wanchanyama 0]

Hunting around Juryo.com (bloody good site if the owner is reading) and I found this on Miyagiyama (29)

http://www.juryo.com/newspaper/19310120.htm

so looks like he retired in Jan 1931 instead of March 1931.  Nothing else here in March 1931.

Also - Umegatani's II promotion (you know I like this guy) shows a ceremony as being held Oct 31 1903 (a Sunday) - jointly with Hitachiyama - interestingly H is listed as 19 and UII as 20th.  This is about 4 months after your date and 2.5 before first basho in rank as listed by NSK.  Still - is a ceremony but nothing else covered therein or thereabouts.

http://www.juryo.com/newspaper/1900/19031103.htm

1931.01 and 1931.03 was once again a double-banzuke so Miyagiyama was still listed in 1931.03.

There is a good web site http://gans01.hp.infoseek.co.jp/ (Japanese one) which has the records of the high ranking wrestlers for every basho going back to the 1700's. Day by day for the top half of makuuchi and basho w/l for bottom half and juryo. Looking at the two basho in question, the ones after Tsunenohana and Miyagiyama quit, it shows that they did not participate in the bashos. Just has them listed as intai.

Regarding the article http://www.juryo.com/newspaper/19300917.htm about Tsunenohana arriving to participate in the Osaka basho. The English reporting of sumo back in those days was not always really accurate. This was from the Mainichi, and was probably a translation from the Japanese Mainichi. However pre-war articles can quite often suffer from inaccurate translations of what was actually true. Will get the Japan Times for 1930 shortly and it will be interesting to see how/what is reported in it. The quality and different styles between the papers is quite evident.

I'd like to add to points made by Yubi-zeki.

I hazard a guess that even though they had decided to retire from the ring, back in those days the jungyo were much more important as money spinners for the sumo association and the heya but also as the only chance that a lot of the population got to see the wrestlers as there was no TV at the time. What a good way to increase the crowds as a marketing ploy, this will be the last time you will be able to see which ever wrestler the case may have been. It was also the last chance for the rikishi to perform for their fans, and as there were numerous jungyo basho held around the country

It is also of some probable importance that both these cases happened before the famous sumo strike of 1932 in which 2/3's of the makuuchi division went out on strike and eventually quit. Monetary unhappiness from the rikishi in regarding not getting enough of the share is quite evident through the 20's into the major walkout. I don't know how the oyakata kabu situation was in those days, however the oyakata of the retiring rikishi might have been after the last bit of money from his rikishi performing. The pay rates were pretty poor for rikishi back in those days and the rikishi might have needed more money as well.

Only speculation based on impressions from the research of the web site.

BTW, the www.juryo.com site has been put together by me. Been working since around May 2000. Has certainly developed much more than I thought it ever would. Glad you find it interesting.

[Mark Buckton 1]

A bit of a twist in the posthumousity? of Tanikaze's era that supports this concept for me.

He was supposedly promoted to Yokozuna whilst still only sekiwake. (had lost his Ozeki rank a few years earlier)

Thereafter he was only listed as an Ozeki (obvious reasons) so, perhaps.....

still working on this one.

(Laughing...)

[Yubiquitoyama 4]

A bit of a twist in the posthumousity? of Tanikaze's era that supports this concept for me.

He was supposedly promoted to Yokozuna whilst still only sekiwake. (had lost his Ozeki rank a few years earlier)

Thereafter he was only listed as an Ozeki (obvious reasons) so, perhaps.....

still working on this one.

(Applauding...)

No one was listed as Yokozuna on banzukes at that time. Yokozuna-license was the same as being given the right to perform a Yokozuna dohyo-iri and did not necessarily even mean the rank of the rikishi had to be Ozeki. In Tanikaze

Edited August 7, 2004 by Yubiquitoyama