Ozeki demotions

[HenryK]

Ozeki demotions -- an Ozeki falling back to Sekiwake -- have always been rare. However, in recent years Ozeki got only demoted when they went fusen: the last 4 Ozeki demotions (Dejima, Miyabiyama, and Tochiazuma twice) where of that kind. An Ozeki missing KK twice and hence continuing as a Sekiwake hasn't happened since 2000 (when this occured twice, with Takanonami and Musoyama).

Now Ozeki is of course a protected rank, but with the current crop of Ozeki the rank has become almost like Yokozuna -- a rank for life. Somehow the current Ozeki always edge out a KK at the right time, and if they can't the Ozeki would retire rather than accepting demotion. Is this how it should be?

This said, there have been other long periods without a "regular" Ozeki demotion, notably 1961-74 and 1977-93.

Here is a list of Ozeki-Sekiwake demotions since 1957

[Flohru]

Now Ozeki is of course a protected rank, but with the current crop of Ozeki the rank has become almost like Yokozuna -- a rank for life. Somehow the current Ozeki always edge out a KK at the right time, and if they can't the Ozeki would retire rather than accepting demotion. Is this how it should be?

Well, I think you should make clear that we are talking only about 2 (of 5 active) Ozeki, Kaio and Chiyotaikai. Kotooshu only was Kadoban twice in 19 basho and Kotomitsuki not once. So it might indeed be just a historical "coincidence" that there were no "regular" Ozeki demotions that long with two extraordinary enduring Ozeki.

And yes I think this is how it should be: Ozeki keeping their rank as long as possible (with good performances of course, not the 2005/06 Kaio or the 2007 Kotooshu) and rather retiring than being demoted once their time has come!

[Harry]

Of course some of the fusen were voluntary, not because they really couldn't continue the basho. If you aren't going to get 8 I guess you might as well rest.

I feel bad for Miyabiyama who had such a fast rise to ozeki in just two years, then less than two years at the rank and when he went 10-5, 14-1Y(EDIT: 14-1D), 10-5 at sekiwake for the last two they didn't give it back to him! I assume that was because he was going down rather than up (surely 10-5, 10-5, 14-1Y (EDIT: 14-1D) would have done it? 34 wins? I still don't understand that one and should obviously go back and read the thoughts here at that time as I was not a member then). I commend the guy for going on and giving it his all and hope a return to sanyaku is in the cards even though ozeki repromotion is almost certainly out of reach.

The higher the fewer, life is tough at the top, the bigger they are the harder they fall.... and climbing back up there is even harder. That said, I don't really think this has changed recently.

To continue the cliches... Going out on top is a thought I guess. If you're young you can try to get back in as sekiwake or even tough it out like Miyabiyama and Dejima but at their age it is probably better to think about running a stable or a restaurant or something.

Edited January 2, 2009 by Harry

[Asashosakari]

and when he went 10-5, 14-1Y, 10-5

Erm...

I've written the same boring screed at least three times in the last couple of years (SML, ST, at least once here), so just to summarize: I pretty much agree with everything Flohru wrote. There's no need for rule changes just because two of the strongest not-Yokozuna of all time with Kaio and Chiyotaikai happen to be riding into the sunset at the same time. They had further to fall skill-wise than the average deteriorating ozeki, hence they're also managing to hang on longer (even absent gifted wins and other possible shenanigans). It's not a new paradigm, it's just a historical coincidence.

[Harry]

and when he went 10-5, 14-1Y, 10-5

Erm...

Sorry, 14-1D....

And I went back and read about the too many ozeki factor so no need to say more.

[HenryK]

Now Ozeki is of course a protected rank, but with the current crop of Ozeki the rank has become almost like Yokozuna -- a rank for life. Somehow the current Ozeki always edge out a KK at the right time, and if they can't the Ozeki would retire rather than accepting demotion. Is this how it should be?

Well, I think you should make clear that we are talking only about 2 (of 5 active) Ozeki, Kaio and Chiyotaikai. Kotooshu only was Kadoban twice in 19 basho and Kotomitsuki not once. So it might indeed be just a historical "coincidence" that there were no "regular" Ozeki demotions that long with two extraordinary enduring Ozeki.

And yes I think this is how it should be: Ozeki keeping their rank as long as possible (with good performances of course, not the 2005/06 Kaio or the 2007 Kotooshu) and rather retiring than being demoted once their time has come!

I for my part wouldn't mind to see a bit more movement into and out of Ozeki rank, but tastes differ.

[HenryK]

Let me say ahead that I also think there is no need to change rules. The following is therefore pure hypothetical speculation and should be discussed as this.

Now 10 wins is often considered a benchmark for upholding "Ozeki honor". Say one would request an Ozeki to put in a 10 every 4 or 5 tournaments. Make this 6: at least one 10-5 basho per calendar year. An Ozeki who fails at this for a full calendar year enters Hatsu of the next calendar year as Sekiwake.

I haven't checked the implications this would have had in history. But I would think it should trigger the occasional Ozeki-demotion for rikishi who aren't fully up to the rank's standards any longer (or for a temporary period). If this would yield a too low equilibrium number of Ozeki (which I doubt), one could interpret the promotion criteria to ozeki a bit less strictly (say, 32 could do in some circumstances).

Isn't there a chance this could be interesting?

[_the_mind_]

Now Ozeki is of course a protected rank, but with the current crop of Ozeki the rank has become almost like Yokozuna -- a rank for life. Somehow the current Ozeki always edge out a KK at the right time, and if they can't the Ozeki would retire rather than accepting demotion. Is this how it should be?

Well, I think you should make clear that we are talking only about 2 (of 5 active) Ozeki, Kaio and Chiyotaikai. Kotooshu only was Kadoban twice in 19 basho and Kotomitsuki not once. So it might indeed be just a historical "coincidence" that there were no "regular" Ozeki demotions that long with two extraordinary enduring Ozeki.

And yes I think this is how it should be: Ozeki keeping their rank as long as possible (with good performances of course, not the 2005/06 Kaio or the 2007 Kotooshu) and rather retiring than being demoted once their time has come!

I for my part wouldn't mind to see a bit more movement into and out of Ozeki rank, but tastes differ.

it devalues the rank if there is significant movement into the rank. making tons of rikishi "former ozeki", it wouldnt be special to be an ozeki or former ozeki

Edited January 3, 2009 by _the_mind_

[HenryK]

Now Ozeki is of course a protected rank, but with the current crop of Ozeki the rank has become almost like Yokozuna -- a rank for life. Somehow the current Ozeki always edge out a KK at the right time, and if they can't the Ozeki would retire rather than accepting demotion. Is this how it should be?

Well, I think you should make clear that we are talking only about 2 (of 5 active) Ozeki, Kaio and Chiyotaikai. Kotooshu only was Kadoban twice in 19 basho and Kotomitsuki not once. So it might indeed be just a historical "coincidence" that there were no "regular" Ozeki demotions that long with two extraordinary enduring Ozeki.

And yes I think this is how it should be: Ozeki keeping their rank as long as possible (with good performances of course, not the 2005/06 Kaio or the 2007 Kotooshu) and rather retiring than being demoted once their time has come!

I for my part wouldn't mind to see a bit more movement into and out of Ozeki rank, but tastes differ.

it devalues the rank if there is significant movement into the rank. making tons of rikishi "former ozeki", it wouldnt be special to be an ozeki or former ozeki

One could argue as well (or better) that it devalues the rank when active Ozeki are never competitive for yushos. And of course noone is suggesting "tons of former Ozeki".

Edited January 3, 2009 by HenryK

[Shomishuu]

One could argue as well (or better) that it devalues the rank when active Ozeki are never competitive for yushos.

I don't see how they would be more yusho competitive if they were sekiwake, since they compete against a nearly identical set of opponents every basho anyway.

With that said, I am in agreement that sumo would be more spectator-friendly in the last few days if the rank were NOT so highly valued. But I wouldn't be holding my breath, considering that tradition requires - when there are less than two ozeki, a yokozuna to be dubbed a 'yokozuna-ozeki.'

And then there's the fact that there has been only one basho in the last 103 years (1981 Aki) with no bona fide ozeki on the banzuke. I do believe in coincidence, but sometimes the numbers are just too overwhelming.

[Flohru]

I for my part wouldn't mind to see a bit more movement into and out of Ozeki rank, but tastes differ.

One could argue as well (or better) that it devalues the rank when active Ozeki are never competitive for yushos. And of course noone is suggesting "tons of former Ozeki".

Well, if you want to see more movement into and OUT of Ozeki rank, that suggests at least more former Ozeki as you probably don't want young rikishi like Kotooshu to retire immediately after their demotion back to Sekiwake in case there are stricter demotion rules for their rank...

That said if you look at the number of Ozeki promotions since the official introduction of the current Ozeki demotion rule in 1969 (41 in 40 years, not sure if 1969 is correct though?) you'll see that in average there "should" be only one new Ozeki every year. Since 2005 we exactly matched that average and while there were no promotions in 2003/04 there were lots of promotions in 1999, 2000 and 2002. You already mentioned in your initial post that there were (far) longer periods with no regular Ozeki demotions than the current as we actually had a record breaking number of regular Ozeki demotions in this decade.

So I really don't think that the Ozeki situation is a problem right now despite having Kaio/Chiyotaikai. This thread would have been more appropriate in the mid 90s I guess when there were neither Ozeki promotions nor demotions for about 5 whole years mostly due to the heya advantage factor (that is fortunately irrelevant nowadays).

[Asashosakari]

I haven't checked the implications this would have had in history. But I would think it should trigger the occasional Ozeki-demotion for rikishi who aren't fully up to the rank's standards any longer (or for a temporary period). If this would yield a too low equilibrium number of Ozeki (which I doubt), one could interpret the promotion criteria to ozeki a bit less strictly (say, 32 could do in some circumstances).

My suggestion to make it easier for ozeki to lose their rank would not result in long periods of NO ozeki, because as I stated in my message, the whole point of doing so is to perhaps allow the ozeki promotion requirements to be eased as well.

How far would you relax the requirements...30 wins in three basho? 27? Any three sanyaku kachi-koshi?

With 30 wins, we would have had exactly three additional ozeki in the last 20 years - Kotonishiki, Wakanosato and Tochinowaka. (Hands up everyone who has *ever* thought of Tochinowaka as ozeki material...) And all three posted exactly 30 wins, so it's not like they just barely missed the existing 33-win mark. Everybody else who reached 30 wins also reached 33 wins at some point, or in Chiyotaikai's case 32 wins with a yusho which was also deemed sufficient for promotion. (He got 33 as an ozeki later on.)

Even relaxing the standard to just 27 wins wouldn't have added a whole lot of new ozeki...Kotogaume, Akinoshima and recently Ama, on top of the previous three. Does anybody think that Ama is a stronger rikishi than our current four ozeki? He might well be their equal, but since you're already discontent with the performances of those ozeki, I'm not sure I see the wisdom of a solution that ensures *even more* weak ozeki for the future.

So in summary, what you'd achieve is that some/many of the rikishi who are most likely to make ozeki anyway would do so earlier in their careers, plus a few more guys who would quickly disappear to maegashira hell again. In return, your toughened standards for keeping the rank would likely make sure that even the "real" ozekis won't last nearly as long. (In part because you end up promoting talented rikishi who aren't nearly ready yet.) I suppose they'd also have a somewhat easier path to return to ozeki after their inevitable demotion, but I don't see how that's a good thing. Most people here and elsewhere didn't seem all that thrilled about Tochiazuma dropping and returning not just once but twice.

[Wakatoryu]

I think it has, and I personally am not a very big fan of special competition privelages being given to rank (i.e. an Ozeki or Yokozuna can have a losing record and not be affected or miss more tournaments due to injury than other rikishi etc.)

Granted my thinking may be a bit radical compared to others on the forum here, but I think it would be great if Sumo adopted a sort of individual ranking system similar to that of tennis, (with basically everyone ranked in numerical order 1 - 75 or whatever) doing away with the special privileges allotted to Ozeki and even Yokozuna. Maybe just rank everyone based on their win-loss performance going up to a year back, keeping the traditional ranks of Yokozuna and Ozeki still but just treating them as slots for the top 4 to 8 rikishi, which could change from basho to basho. While granted still most of the time the better wrestlers are still going to win the percentage of tournaments and stay near the top, due to the 15 day tournament format, I think this would allow for a little more flexibility at the top of the rankings and mix things up a little in general, (I may even be so radical as to say it would be nice to see 1 or 2 of the tournament formats change to say maybe something more resembling a world cup format involving single elimination stages etc.)

Obviously hypothetical thinking here as such changes would never take place for numerous reasons, but if nothing else would it not add a bit more excitement to the sport?

Edited January 3, 2009 by Wakatoryu

[Randomitsuki]

Obviously hypothetical thinking here as such changes would never take place for numerous reasons, but if nothing else would it not add a bit more excitement to the sport?

Certainly not for me. One of the reasons for me to like sumo is its unique ranking system. The only other sport that I know that assigns some ranks that last through an entire career, is chess, but it fails to amaze me in other respects. (Showing respect...)

[HenryK]

I for my part wouldn't mind to see a bit more movement into and out of Ozeki rank, but tastes differ.

One could argue as well (or better) that it devalues the rank when active Ozeki are never competitive for yushos. And of course noone is suggesting "tons of former Ozeki".

Well, if you want to see more movement into and OUT of Ozeki rank, that suggests at least more former Ozeki as you probably don't want young rikishi like Kotooshu to retire immediately after their demotion back to Sekiwake in case there are stricter demotion rules for their rank...

Of course there would be a few more former Ozeki, but a few more isn't "tons". As for Kotooshu, I wouldn't have argued against a demotion to Sekiwake at end-07. Many thought he wasn't holding up Ozeki honor any longer with his lacklustre performances.

More generally, wouldn't it be better if a rikishi who doesn't fight at Ozeki level an longer would be a former Ozeki, rather than an active one?

That said if you look at the number of Ozeki promotions since the official introduction of the current Ozeki demotion rule in 1969 (41 in 40 years, not sure if 1969 is correct though?) you'll see that in average there "should" be only one new Ozeki every year. Since 2005 we exactly matched that average and while there were no promotions in 2003/04 there were lots of promotions in 1999, 2000 and 2002. You already mentioned in your initial post that there were (far) longer periods with no regular Ozeki demotions than the current as we actually had a record breaking number of regular Ozeki demotions in this decade.

True. And, as Asosahkari has pointed out in a different post, we are talking about marginal changes here anyway, also on the promotion side. This said, it seems worthwhile to me considering whether one shouldn't demand a 10 from an Ozeki every now and then, and -- by implictation -- whether Ozeki who can't do better than 8 or 9 wins any longer shouldn't be removed from that rank.

Edited January 4, 2009 by HenryK

[HenryK]

Obviously hypothetical thinking here as such changes would never take place for numerous reasons, but if nothing else would it not add a bit more excitement to the sport?

Certainly not for me. One of the reasons for me to like sumo is its unique ranking system. The only other sport that I know that assigns some ranks that last through an entire career, is chess, but it fails to amaze me in other respects. (Showing respect...)

For me neither. The ranking system is ingenious and a significant part of its ozumo's attraction. So ingenious in fact that I have tried to apply it (with some modifications) to tennis -- see my signature.

What is interesting though is to complement the banzuke ranking system with other informal ranking systems, such as Doitsuyama's strenght ratings.

[Gusoyama]

Some stats:

Ozeki since 1958 that have not gotten 10 wins in 6+ basho:

Matsunobori 1956.01-1958.11(his complete ozeki career)

Kotogahama 1961.03-1962.05

Tochihikari 1965.03-1966.01(intai)

Kitabayama 1965.07-1966.05(intai)

Yutakayama 1966.05-1967.05

Tamanoshima 1966.11-1967.09(became Yokozuna)

Maenoyama 1970.11-1972.11

Maenoyama 1973.03-1974.03(intai)

Takanohana 1972.11-1974.01

Daikirin 1972.09-1974.03

Meinoumi 1976.09-1977.11(became Yokozuna)

Asahikuni 1978.05-1979.09(intai)

Wakashimazu 1985.09-1987.07(intai)

Asashio 1986.05-1989.03(intai)

Hokutenyu 1987.03-1988.09

Miyabiyama 2000.07-2001.09(demoted to Sekiwake)

Tochiazuma 2002.07-2003.07

Musoyama 2003.09-2004.11(intai)

Kotooshu 2007.01-2008.03

Kaio 2007.07-Current

Chiyotaikai 2008.01-Current

The ONLY Ozeki who would not have been demoted under the "double digits in 6" rule:

Kotogahama

Masuiyama(only 7 basho as ozeki)

Kotokaze(demoted to sekiwake under 2 MK in a row)

Kirishima(demoted to sekiwake under 2 MK in a row)

Konishiki(demoted to sekiwake under 2 MK in a row)

Takanonami(demoted to sekiwake under 2 MK in a row)

Dejima(demoted to sekiwake under 2 MK in a row)

Kotomitsuki(9 basho as Ozeki, still active)

And here's a chart indicating the number of Ozeki yusho/year. This includes yokozuna runs.

[Washuyama]

The Ozeki are heads and shoulders beter than all those below, when they are healthy and on their game. Chiyotaikai showed that a year or so ago with his yusho run and Kotooshu with his '08 yusho. Kaio, while he is past his prime, has more yusho than any ozeki in history and can still beat anybody on any given day.

I would imagine if both yokozuna were to sit out for an entire year, all six yusho would be won by the ozeki (and not all by the new guy.)

[Shomishuu]

Now 10 wins is often considered a benchmark for upholding "Ozeki honor". Say one would request an Ozeki to put in a 10 every 4 or 5 tournaments. Make this 6: at least one 10-5 basho per calendar year. An Ozeki who fails at this for a full calendar year enters Hatsu of the next calendar year as Sekiwake.

I haven't checked the implications this would have had in history. But I would think it should trigger the occasional Ozeki-demotion for rikishi who aren't fully up to the rank's standards any longer (or for a temporary period).

I was going to weigh in on this earlier, but I knew this new issue was coming online any day, and now that is just has, I'll let it speak for itself (click on "The Ozeki" article in the left column). You can use the database to quickly eyeball the implications of your suggestion, and - as in the 9-win kachi koshi scenario - the implications are great. Some ozeki careers would have never gotten off the ground while many others would have been shortened considerably. There is even a question whether the current rijicho (yokozuna Mienoumi) would have ever spent more than two basho at ozeki (although one may assume that his yokozuna run would have been an ozeki run instead...).

I think that the banzuke-minders (the ozeki themselves) could manipulate the once-a-year 10 win requirement much easier than the 9-win kachi koshi requirement because, in the 9-win scenario, there just wouldn't be that many wins to go around on an every-basho basis. It would be much easier to make sure each of them gets his 10, if there are six basho to do it in.

I agree with you that these scenarios are thoroughly engrossing, but for the reasons given therein, not very realistic - if for no other reason that if any of them had actually been in place, the historical numbers we'd be looking at would be different than they really are.

The banzuke wins - always.

[HenryK]

Some stats:

Ozeki since 1958 that have not gotten 10 wins in 6+ basho:

Matsunobori 1956.01-1958.11(his complete ozeki career)

Kotogahama 1961.03-1962.05

Tochihikari 1965.03-1966.01(intai)

Kitabayama 1965.07-1966.05(intai)

Yutakayama 1966.05-1967.05

Tamanoshima 1966.11-1967.09(became Yokozuna)

Maenoyama 1970.11-1972.11

Maenoyama 1973.03-1974.03(intai)

Takanohana 1972.11-1974.01

Daikirin 1972.09-1974.03

Meinoumi 1976.09-1977.11(became Yokozuna)

Asahikuni 1978.05-1979.09(intai)

Wakashimazu 1985.09-1987.07(intai)

Asashio 1986.05-1989.03(intai)

Hokutenyu 1987.03-1988.09

Miyabiyama 2000.07-2001.09(demoted to Sekiwake)

Tochiazuma 2002.07-2003.07

Musoyama 2003.09-2004.11(intai)

Kotooshu 2007.01-2008.03

Kaio 2007.07-Current

Chiyotaikai 2008.01-Current

The ONLY Ozeki who would not have been demoted under the "double digits in 6" rule:

Kotogahama

Masuiyama(only 7 basho as ozeki)

Kotokaze(demoted to sekiwake under 2 MK in a row)

Kirishima(demoted to sekiwake under 2 MK in a row)

Konishiki(demoted to sekiwake under 2 MK in a row)

Takanonami(demoted to sekiwake under 2 MK in a row)

Dejima(demoted to sekiwake under 2 MK in a row)

Kotomitsuki(9 basho as Ozeki, still active)

Thanks, very interesting and suggesting that my ad-hoc rule may overdo it a little. To reply to a specific point raised by Shomisuu though (thanks for the interesting link as well), both Mienoumi and Tamanoshima would have made it to Yokozuna also under the one-10-in-6 rule (Mienoumi possibly one basho later than he did).

Edited January 5, 2009 by HenryK

[HenryK]

Here is a stat on my own -- the average number of Ozeki wins per basho per year. Only completed bashos were counted.

In 2008, the Ozeki won on average 8.8 fights per basho (Kotooshu 9.6, Kotomitsuki 9.2, Kaio 8.4, Chiyotaikai 8.0). This is significantly below the long-time average for Ozeki (9.9 for 1958-2008) and actually closer to the long-term average for Sekiwake (8.2). It is also the lowest Ozeki-score since 1980 (a special year, when the only two active Ozeki, Takanohana and Masuiyama, went intai). Typically, when the Ozeki average comes down close to 9 or lower one or more Ozeki went intai, but not in 2008.

Edited January 5, 2009 by HenryK

[Asashosakari]

(Warning: Long and meandering post born out of an annoying case of sleeplessnees.)

Granted my thinking may be a bit radical compared to others on the forum here, but I think it would be great if Sumo adopted a sort of individual ranking system similar to that of tennis, (with basically everyone ranked in numerical order 1 - 75 or whatever) doing away with the special privileges allotted to Ozeki and even Yokozuna. Maybe just rank everyone based on their win-loss performance going up to a year back, keeping the traditional ranks of Yokozuna and Ozeki still but just treating them as slots for the top 4 to 8 rikishi, which could change from basho to basho. While granted still most of the time the better wrestlers are still going to win the percentage of tournaments and stay near the top, due to the 15 day tournament format, I think this would allow for a little more flexibility at the top of the rankings and mix things up a little in general, (I may even be so radical as to say it would be nice to see 1 or 2 of the tournament formats change to say maybe something more resembling a world cup format involving single elimination stages etc.)

Obviously hypothetical thinking here as such changes would never take place for numerous reasons, but if nothing else would it not add a bit more excitement to the sport?

I was itching to write a response to this since I first read it a few days ago, but it was hard to do - for one thing because there's no accounting for taste (I am not worthy...) and for another because it's extremely difficult to compare a tried and true template (even if perhaps a suboptimal one) to something that's so very different and untested, and arguably untestable, short of actually putting it in practice. So, anyway, a different angle...the most likely way something like Wakatoryu's suggestion could come about would probably be due to a rival organization springing up, and while it's easy to think that sumo can't possibly have its own (K-1) Kazuyoshi Ishii, one should never say never; things just need to get bad enough. This will require a bit of a detour now:

I've had darts on my mind these last few days, what with one of the two world championships finishing up last night. For a bit of backstory - when professional darts went through a serious phase of decline in the late 1980s and early '90s, the top players of the day decided to take matters into their own hands and represent themselves as they felt the British Darts Organization wasn't doing enough to revive and increase public interest in the sport. From merely an attempt to improve public relations and stage additional tournaments on their own, the whole thing quickly spiralled out of control as the BDO insisted on being the sole representation of darts and dart players, and eventually banned the "rebels" from its own competitions entirely. And voila, two world championships, and soon after two pretty much fully separate annual tournament series and player pools. (For a vaguely on-topic parallel, just imagine the World Sumo League had been successful and the ISF had decided to escalate their banning threats further in response.)

Anyway, the rival organization (now named the Professional Darts Corporation) is pretty clearly the more successful and more attractive one these days even without the claim to all of darts' prior history that the BDO can make, and lots of players have moved to the PDC in recent years but very few the opposite direction. (Actually a trend that's been going for most of the last 15 years, just accelerated again lately.) Doesn't stop all the usual "who's really better?" fan arguments, of course...one that I came across while surfing around last night is roughly "if the PDC is really better, why did all the top BDO players who jumped ship lately find it so easy to have success in the PDC, too?" Other than the obvious but goalpost-moving response, that being "Doesn't it concern you that all those top players jumped ship in the first place?", most people's initial thought is probably that it doesn't matter whether the PDC actually is better, just that it's getting better due to all the defections and the BDO is getting weaker - and even if not now, sooner or later the PDC will be completely dominant if those trends continue.

But on second thought, the question of why the BDO even has strong players to lose 15 years after the split still needs an answer. And even though I'm far (very far) from an expert on darts, the one thing that clearly separates the two organizations is that the PDC has a much weaker support structure of semi-pro and amateur ranks, while the BDO is the national representation of darts at all levels, and also has a much stronger international flavour among the participants for its major tournaments thanks to its affiliation with the World Darts Federation. (Not a huge shock given the PDC's origin as a representation of top players, of course...and they're catching up on the internationalism, for what that's worth.)

And that's where I'll attempt to bring things back to sumo...one thing that isn't really emphasized about Ozumo but that is pretty fundamental to its current structure is that the competition is exactly the same (other than the 7/15-bout distinction) whether you're a yokozuna or a jonokuchi. Looking at Wakatoryu's suggestions, even if it may not be fully intentional, they necessarily require that the top flight of Ozumo be run differently than the lower rungs. After all, there's no point in developing audience-friendly formats for competitions that won't be attracting any sizable audience, anyway. Now, with the NSK being required to act in such a way as to keep all of professional sumo healthy and viable, it's extremely unlikely that they'll introduce anything like a "Premier League of Sumo" or whatever one might want to dub it, and break with the "one size fits all" approach where the top division simply sets itself apart from the rest by being better and stronger.

But as mentioned at the beginning, a rival sumo group wouldn't be bound by the same codex and could simply organize high-profile competitions with the top rikishi only. All just a thought experiment, of course - I'm ignoring the high likelihood that the Japanese government wouldn't allow this to happen altogether here. The question of whether this would actually serve to make sumo more popular is pretty much unanswerable, I think; but what I'm getting at is that it could well relegate the NSK (in whichever form it would continue to exist) to a mainly developmental organization, much like seems to be the fate of the BDO in darts, and that might well be the more interesting question: would Ozumo be served by such a clear split between a high-profile commercial enterprise and a (probably semi-pro) developmental group? Assuming that the commercial side wouldn't go all WSL on us (i.e. drop the traditions and rituals altogether) and would maintain some resemblance to today's sumo, just with updated tournament structures and income opportunities, the answer may not actually be as clear-cut as it would at first appear...

Edited January 5, 2009 by Asashosakari

[Shomishuu]

To reply to a specific point raised by Shomisuu though (thanks for the interesting link as well), both Mienoumi and Tamanoshima would have made it to Yokozuna also under the one-10-in-6 rule (Mienoumi possibly one basho later than he did).

Heh heh...I misinterpreted my own chart on the start of Mienoumi's ozeki career...should have gone by the Sumo Reference instead! (Whistling...). Yeah, looks like his last yusho would've put him at the top. Thanks for the catch. (I am not worthy...)

[HenryK]

With 30 wins, we would have had exactly three additional ozeki in the last 20 years - Kotonishiki, Wakanosato and Tochinowaka. (Hands up everyone who has *ever* thought of Tochinowaka as ozeki material...)

Kotonishiki and Wakansato would have made for fine Ozeki though.

[Sasanishiki]

Assuming that the commercial side wouldn't go all WSL on us (i.e. drop the traditions and rituals altogether) and would maintain some resemblance to today's sumo, just with updated tournament structures and income opportunities, the answer may not actually be as clear-cut as it would at first appear...

I enjoyed reading your post and found it as an intersting way to consider ozumo. Just a couple of things...what did you mean by "the high likelihood that the Japanese government wouldn't allow this to happen"? Are you suggesting that the government would come in to bail sumo out if there was a battle over secring athletes for the highest price or that the Ministry of Education would allow NSK to develop differently to combat a challenge from an outside group? Or perhaps something else?

My other point is just a nitpick regarding the piece I've quoted. The problem with the WSL for sumo purists* (both amateur and ozumo) is that it did not drop the traditions and rituals alogether. Rather, it tried to make amateur sumo (which has kept the rituals in a perfunctary sense) ritzier and more like ozumo as a package for largely unaware audiences and so invented its own Orientalising rituals and narratives. Thus, WSL was caught between amateur and professional sumo as a pale comparison to either, and as somethig approaching the cheesiness of WWE professional wrestling.

*I suppose I'm professing to be a sumo purist here, particularly when it comes to amasumo.