2 Yokozuna and 5 Ozeki is too many

[kaiguma]

Your contention that there is a logjam is simply not true. There is no restriction on the number of active yokozunas and ozekis.

Actually there appears to an unwritten "rule", "guideline", "restriction", call it what you will, that there cannot be 6 Ozekis on the banzuke at once. I re-iterate it is, apparently unwritten, as I can not find any indication that such a "rule" exists but if you will look throughout the history of Ozumo you will not find a time when there were 6 Ozeki.

I'm not necessarily refuting you here... after all, if it is unwritten then only a few can verify the existence of this "rule."

However, I'd like to point out that Yokozuna are on some level considered as ozeki, and definitely so from the point of view of this discussion. We are speaking of the difficulties in maintaining sufficient respectable records for all yokozuna and ozeki on a given banzuke. 4 yokozuna and 4 ozeki would be way more of a logjam than 2/5... so I'm not so sure the rule is as simple as you state it to be. It may instead be alimit on the total number of ozeki and yokozuna combined. But then I am way too lazy to go and try to search for an answer...

(Neener, neener...)

[Asojima]

Do not be so naive as to believe that the Rijikai can just totally overturn all of their traditions. Believe me if it were that easy they would have created a Japanese Yokozuna by now and that hasn't happend and won't for probably at least another 1 1/2 - 2 years and that's if Kisenosato, Goeido or Tochiozan can get their individual or collective acts together by then.

The kyokai is the sole protector of the sumo traditions. It sets, modifies and enforces its own rules and procedures. Promotion criteria, kosho, kadoban, division sizes and thousands of other factors are tweaked over the years at their whim, but it is done with the view of what is best for the sport. They have the right to do anything they want to, but having the right to do something doesn't make it right to do it. If any of the three rikishi put together three consecutive zensho yusho, there would be a Japanese yokozuna by March of next year. If Baruto did it, we would have an Estonian yokozuna. Some rules would be tweaked a bit, but the kyokai would be fully justified in offering the promotion, and they would not "totally overturn all of their traditions". It is, admittedly, an extreme example, but it is reality.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Asojima

[Asashosakari]

But you see there is a defacto logjam because they won't promote 6 Ozeki at once ...

I bet people were saying the same thing before the first time a 5th ozeki made his appearance. Almost certainly also before the first time they had three.

And of course, as I've detailed before I totally don't buy into the notion that Futahaguro was promoted primarily to make space for Hokutoumi at the ozeki rank, which is rapidly (and strangely) entering "Konishiki's failed yokozuna promotion" level of myth-making. So, just to summarize yet again: Sure, perhaps it was convenient to combine both promotions, but Kitao was a young up'n'comer in a period with a single dominant yokozuna and a whole bunch of mediocre ozeki (sound familiar?), Chiyonofuji was running roughshod over the competition in general and especially during that time in particular (taking 8 out of 9 yusho), and Kitao had just posted consecutive jun-yusho, one a 12-3 and the second one a 14-1 playoff loss, providing the ever-alluring "upwards trend".

Of course the lack of any career yusho is troubling in hindsight, but who could have possibly predicted that at the time? Hell, Tochiazuma and Kaio were sort-of-promised promotion with merely consecutive 13-2's because Asashoryu was so strong and that happened during a time when the 2-consecutive-yusho guideline had been firmly in place for two decades - no such guideline was followed back in the mid-80s and a rising star posted 26 wins in two basho and took the ultra-dominant yokozuna of the time into a ketteisen. Why does anybody think that promotion was unwarranted by the standards of the time? (And he's not even the only one to have been promoted to yokozuna without any prior yusho, and far from the only one to not have any yusho at the ozeki and/or the yokozuna rank.)

Anyway, does anybody honestly think if Kitao had been 9-6, 11-4 in those two basho that they would have kept Hoshi at the sekiwake rank after he posted 36 (!!!) wins in three tournaments there, just so they could have held steady to some invisible "no more than five ozeki!" line that isn't even objectively justifiable by anything? C'mon. I could maybe see a justification for four (one pair of sei-ozeki and another pair of haridashi), but the only reason people regard five ozeki as "normal" nowadays is because it has been done before. If six ozeki had been done before, nobody would bother to look for post-hoc explanations of why having six ozeki is "not normal". There's no "tradition" that says that there can't be more than five ozeki; there just hasn't been any situation in history in which having six ozeki was called for, just like there hadn't been any situation in which having five ozeki was called for, until the first time it happened.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Asashosakari

[ryafuji]

You may well be correct that the Futahaguro-six ozeki story is a myth. With so-called "unwritten rules" it's impossible to prove or disprove. With Futahaguro being such a failure as a yokozuna I doubt anyone would ever admit that he could have been promoted for such a bizarre reason anyway. It seems more likely that he was a "potential rather than finished article" promotion (rather like Kitanofuji's elevation to ozeki despite not having the 33 wins) that just didn't work out. Whatever the truth, I'm just rather relieved that it's not just me who's heard this particular story!:)

I don't think I was around this forum for the "Konishiki promotion myth" discussion, whatever that was. At the risk of opening another can of worms, I"ll just say that I always thought he wasn't promoted because he didn't win two tournaments in a row, as has been the case with every yokozuna candidate post Futahaguro. Not only that, but in January 1992, the tournament between his two yusho, he actually trailed in third, which should have disqualified him from consideration as well. I saw that tournament on TV and he looked bloody awful in his losses to Tochinowaka and Akinoshima - certainly not a yokozuna performance.

Edited July 29, 2009 by ryafuji

[Asashosakari]

It seems more likely that he was a "potential rather than finished article" promotion (rather like Kitanofuji's elevation to ozeki despite not having the 33 wins) that just didn't work out.

Pretty much so. I mean, he was pretty much 90% or more on the way towards fulfilling that period's promotion criteria even in a conservative reading of the situation - if he'd beaten Chiyonofuji in the playoff bout, there's absolutely zero way that anyone would claim with a straight face that he was only promoted to clear the way for Hokutoumi's ozeki debut. And that's why the story doesn't work as told, even if there just might be a little piece of truth in it (what I've called being "convenient" above). But if Futahaguro's yokozuna career hadn't been such a spectacular flop, the whole thing wouldn't be noteworthy at all beyond being "oh, it was one of those rare basho with simultaneous Y and O promotions!" trivia.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Asashosakari

[Treblemaker]

FWIW, I believe the ineveitable entropy that is finally catching up with Asashoryu, along with the hopefully incipient retirement of Kaio after he sets his 98th basho record will get the upper rank logjam cleared up.

Your contention that there is a logjam is simply not true. There is no restriction on the number of active yokozunas and ozekis. Any rikishi who can consistently put together 12-3 or better bashos will rise to the top. No single rikishi can stop him. If there are a large group of mediocre ozekis, he will join them and eventually surpass them. A bunch of deadwood ozekis can play games among themselves, but that won't affect a true contender. If there is a very dominant yokozuna, the pretender will keep knocking on the door, and the kyokai will look for an excuse to promote him. There is no requirement that a new yokozuna must surpass the old yokozuna. There is no rock solid requirement that an ozeki must even win a yusho to get promoted. This is only a guideline.

The problem is that except for Harumafuji, there are simply no strong contenders for Ozeki or Yokozuna at this time. Don't blame the guys on top. Blame the guys who should be replacing them.

And this is the truth. If there were a "logjam", HF would have never been promoted to Ozeki because, well, 4 is a nice round number.

There is no "logjam".

What there is is a bunch of inconsistent, self-distructing, unfocused rikishi who given the chance to take control and catch fire have yet to show they have the maturity and ability to be promoted. I mentioned in a recent post before the Nagoya basho of the fact that the S and K positions are "slippery". No one (except Baruto) seems to be able to consistently hold on to these ranks for longer than a couple of bashos. Yes, you have young, talented guys on the way up, but these same guys just don't have what it takes to be - and this again is the word for the day - consistency.

Forget all those guys on the elevator. The ones who mostly populate the northern half of the banzuke do so at the ineptness of others around them.

Kaio and Taikai wouldn't be on the roster today if the young guns below them did their jobs and properly spanked them. And even then, the S and K positions have yet to yield a performer who can show that he can kick butt basho in and basho out.

And AFAIK, there's no limit on Ozeki positions, or Yok positions. You can have 4 Yoks, if you like. And there would definitely be more than two if, let's say, Osh and/or Mitsuki had managed to add a yusho to their credits when they had the chance. What held them back? Not necessarily Asa and Hak, but their own - word of the day - inconsistencies. This has nothing to do with their physical attributes. It's all about mental toughness and ability.

Why are Hak and Asa where they are? See line above. What are Kaio and Taikai still Ozeki? Not necessarily because they deserve the rank, but because others don't.

Let's pretend that 2 guys, say Goeido and Kise, go on a rampage where the only people they lose to is each other and the yoks. This means they each have a 13-2 record. Let's say that, with a couple of bumps, they do something like that 3 basho in a row. Next thing you know, they're Ozeki and knocking on the Yok door.

But it's not going to happen with this group of rikishi.

I suggest that, in 12 months, there will be only 1 Yok, and maybe 2 Ozeki. 3 if Mitsuki keeps going like he did this month. Everyone else from the S position on down will be playing "Musical Chairs" as they always have.

[Doitsuyama]

I suggest that, in 12 months, there will be only 1 Yok, and maybe 2 Ozeki. 3 if Mitsuki keeps going like he did this month. Everyone else from the S position on down will be playing "Musical Chairs" as they always have.

That's a possibility but I suspect you'd have suggested us retirements for Kaio and Chiyotaikai within 12 months for a few years going. Just look at the Kaio retirement polls - Jejima already can go and prepare another one for 2010 - how many years is that going already?

[Kintamayama]

Your contention that there is a logjam is simply not true. etc.

I must say I usually don't post "I agree" posts.

This is an "I agree totally" post.

[Rattlebones]

The problem, as I see it, is none of the above.

The problem is that the Kyokai make the rules and can ignore them as they see fit. If promotion and demotion were clear cut then it wouldn't matter how many people were at Ozeki or Yokozuna... they would be there because they have reached, and maintained the requirements for the rank.

For example (and this is off the top of my head)...

To reach Yokozuna you need 3 basho with an average of 13-2 across the 3 basho, or 2 basho wins across 3 consecutive basho. To remain Yokozuna you can't drop below an average record of 12-3 across 3 consecutive basho.

To reach Ozeki you need to have 3 basho with 11-4 record. To stay Ozeki you have to maintain an average 9-6 record across 3 consecutive basho.

You may end up with extra Yokozuna or Ozeki for a couple of tournaments but there is no way that once you had "extra" they could maintain their rank indefinitely.

[Asashosakari]

The problem is that the Kyokai make the rules and can ignore them as they see fit. If promotion and demotion were clear cut then it wouldn't matter how many people were at Ozeki or Yokozuna... they would be there because they have reached, and maintained the requirements for the rank. ...

I'd rather have Kaio and Chiyotaikai for another five excruciating years than the revolving door that something like that would create.

[Rattlebones]

I'd rather have Kaio and Chiyotaikai for another five excruciating years than the revolving door that something like that would create.

It would only create a revolving door if everyone was of equal skill and no one could reach the criteria.

So then it's better to have a subjective ruleless ranking system in a sport versus some reasonable (not that my example was reasonable) system for promotions and demotions.

[Shomishuu]

I'd rather have Kaio and Chiyotaikai for another five excruciating years than the revolving door that something like that would create.

It would only create a revolving door if everyone was of equal skill and no one could reach the criteria.

So then it's better to have a subjective, ruleless ranking system in a sport versus some reasonable (not that my example was reasonable) system for promotions and demotions.

Your example could be considered reasonable, but unless the criterion for avoiding a yokozuna demotion was a bit lower, then only the 'great ones' would stay out of the revolving door, and even those yokozuna would leave and re-enter the rank a few times (Check the records of Taiho, Chiyonofuji, etc.). The result would be a transmutation of ozumo so stark that it would be unrecognizable. To avoid that, they'd need to also attach a sort of yokozuna kosho system, which of course already exists.

Just what that standard should be be is of course would be a very...subjective...argument. Subjective criteria for places of honor in many sports is not so unusual. For example, in MLB, why is so-and-so in the Hall of Fame and this other guy isn't. People get very riled up over that. Then there are MVP, Gold Glove, Cy Young awards, All-Star game appearances, etc. These obviously subjective awards and such are tremendously important for long-time baseball fans because baseball is largely viewed and remembered through a prism of statistics; and having, or not having, these subjective-laden awards on one's resume is a big deal (Can anyone recall how many times ANYONE was runner-up for anything?).

As for changing rules on kosho, etc: There isn't a single sport on earth where the governing body doesn't change something almost every year (Well, I don't know about every sport so somebody might come up with something...)

I have my share of complaints about NSK, but employing subjective criteria about promotions isn't one of them. As for demotions, almost nothing is subjective: Yokozuna are NOT demoted, ozeki ARE demoted with two consecutive make koshi, and 99.whatever percent of the time, everyone else IS demoted with a make koshi.

On this subject, I'm perfectly content to have things as they are, and continue to argue over why Kashiwado WAS promoted to yokozuna when he was, and why Bert Blyleven ISN'T in the Hall of Fame.

[HenryK]

The problem, as I see it, is none of the above.

The problem is that the Kyokai make the rules and can ignore them as they see fit. If promotion and demotion were clear cut then it wouldn't matter how many people were at Ozeki or Yokozuna... they would be there because they have reached, and maintained the requirements for the rank.

For example (and this is off the top of my head)...

To reach Yokozuna you need 3 basho with an average of 13-2 across the 3 basho, or 2 basho wins across 3 consecutive basho. To remain Yokozuna you can't drop below an average record of 12-3 across 3 consecutive basho.

To reach Ozeki you need to have 3 basho with 11-4 record. To stay Ozeki you have to maintain an average 9-6 record across 3 consecutive basho.

You may end up with extra Yokozuna or Ozeki for a couple of tournaments but there is no way that once you had "extra" they could maintain their rank indefinitely.

Well I like that Yokozuna is a rank for life, and I like that Ozeki enjoy limited rank protection. These are fundamental characteristics of the ozumo ranking system that also characterize the sport. Thus I wouldn't favor the sweeping reforms you suggest.

But Ozeki are supposed to enjoy limited rank protection. Ozeki is not supposed to be a rank quasi-for-life which, for all pratical purposes, it is now. Hence I think a modest reform would be called for that would make it more difficult for an Ozeki to get out of kadoban. Several proposals have been pondered on this page, like requesting a 10-5 to get out of kadoban.

And if we're already at reforming the bankzuke system, I would also like to make promotion to and demotion from Seiwake a little more difficult -- for example, a rank of at least M3 is a pre-condition for promotion to S (except for yusho-winners), an S can't be demoted further than M3, and if there is no suitable promotion candidate, an S with 7-8 or even 6-9 can keep the rank. There is just no point in demoting Kisenosato or Baruto outside the joi-jin when they mess up a basho, only to promote them back when they score 11-4 or 12-3 in the subsequent one against sub-par opposition.

Edited July 30, 2009 by HenryK

[Gusoyama]

The fact of the matter is, in the past TEN YEARS there have been TWO cases of a rikishi getting 30 or more wins in 3 basho that did not result in an ozeki promotion. Wakanosato in 2003, and Miyabiyama in 2006. Wakanosato had 30 wins on the nose, and Miyabiyama had 34. Most wins at sanyaku over 3 basho for the various contenders that have actually put 3 KKs together at the sanyaku rank:(not including successful Ozeki runs)

Aminishiki: 26

Baruto: 26

Kisenosato: 24

Kotoshogiku: 26

Miyabiyama: 34

Tosanoumi: 25

Wakanosato: 30

Thats it. No one other than Miyabiyama has come within sniffing distance of Ozeki promotion. There's no logjam, only ineptness.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Gusoyama

[ryafuji]

All the same, Miyabiyama probably would have been promoted had there not been five ozeki at the time, right? So there was a log jam for him.

[Asashosakari]

All the same, Miyabiyama probably would have been promoted had there not been five ozeki at the time, right? So there was a log jam for him.

I'm sure it didn't help, but somehow I suspect his highly non-standard 10-14-10 run (coming back from only 5-5 in the crucial third basho, no less*) would have run into issues with less than five ozeki, too, what with his status as an already-failed ozeki. If they'd been low on numbers and desperate for another ozeki like they were with Chiyotaikai 10 years ago, I'm sure it would have sufficed, but as it was...

* And then he started out the next basho only 5-6 as well (finished 9-6 for 14-10-9), so it's hard to fault them for maybe thinking the 14 was a complete fluke. Of course it sucks in objective terms because the actual ozekis were kun-roku'ing it up as usual (okay, except Hakuho who was promoted during that stretch himself), but what can you do...being merely as good as the current rank-holders has never been good enough for promotion.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Asashosakari

[Harry]

I still say Miyabiyama got a raw deal but ah well... he is as much moto-ozeki now as he would have been with a repromotion so I suppose it won't matter in the long run.

[Chisaiyama]

In the on-going discussion of the current state of Ozeki, OBSC, quantity vs quality, logjam/no logjam et. al., it has been stated, and rightly so that Yokozuna are really "super-ozeki". It is that status which causes one of them to act as Yokozuna-Ozeki in the event that there are fewer than 2 "regular" Ozekis on the banzuke.

Also prior to I believe 1909 when the Yokozuna rank was actually established, Yokozunas were simply Ozekis who were "licensed" to perform the special dohyo-iri wearing the tsuna.

My question is what was the promotion/demotion criteria for Ozeki in those pre-official-rank days? Were Ozekis ozekis-for-life as Yokozunas are now or could they in fact be demoted?

Edited August 8, 2009 by Chisaiyama

[Sasanishiki]

My question is what was the promotion/demotion criteria for Ozeki in those pre-official-rank days? Were Ozekis ozekis-for-life as Yokozunas are now or could they in fact be demoted?

Well, after doing a quick banzuke query on the Sumo DB, I too am a little perplexed as to the promotion/demotion criteria for Ozeki in the past. However, there are several cases of ozeki being demoted to sekiwake (and perhaps byond, I only used sekiwake as my constraint) from the 1760s onwards until 1909. This would suggest that ozekis were not there for life. A number of the demotions actaully came after what I would consider a winning record, so I wonder if these records were considered relative to their opponents, or if they were judged on the quality of their sumo, or if which side of teh banzuke they were on (and which side won the flag) had some bearing on the demotions.

[ryafuji]

I believe it is indeed due to the East/West distinction, which was much more strictly adhered to than it is today. An ozeki with a bare majority of wins, even though it was kachi-koshi, could find himself overtaken next tournament by a sekiwake with a better score on the same side. This happened to Nishinoumi I in 1886. There's more details in this Sumo Fan Magazine article:

http://www.sumofanmag.com/content/Issue_22...ishi_of_Old.pdf

Edited August 9, 2009 by ryafuji

[Asashosakari]

Well, after doing a quick banzuke query on the Sumo DB, I too am a little perplexed as to the promotion/demotion criteria for Ozeki in the past. However, there are several cases of ozeki being demoted to sekiwake (and perhaps byond, I only used sekiwake as my constraint) from the 1760s onwards until 1909. This would suggest that ozekis were not there for life. A number of the demotions actaully came after what I would consider a winning record, so I wonder if these records were considered relative to their opponents, or if they were judged on the quality of their sumo, or if which side of teh banzuke they were on (and which side won the flag) had some bearing on the demotions.

It really depends which era we're talking about. Until well into the 19th century the banzuke was really more of a lineup card than a strength ranking, and as such the requirements to become ozeki are just not comparable to the modern era. That's nowhere more obvious than in the early practice of having kanban (guest) ozeki, strong-looking or otherwise impressive men who were there more as pure audience draws than for anything they were capable of fighting-wise, and usually didn't stick around for more than one or a couple of basho, and sometimes only did a dohyo-iri even then. That practice seems to have gone out of style around 1800 as can be seen in the linked list of rikishi who debuted right as ozeki...check out the last two guys Onogataki and Tetsuishi to see what would happen if such a kanban ozeki actually decided to stick around for a bit longer - he'd be ranked "properly" afterwards, which usually meant a quick exit from the ozeki rank.

Once we're approaching 1800, it was possible to become ozeki by working your way up, too (the first two yokozuna Onogawa and Tanikaze come to mind, and the latter actually started as kanban ozeki and then grinded back up the regular way, and then was dropped back to sekiwake for a few years to make space for more kanban ozeki), and I'd guess the "promotion criteria" were simply a mix of popularity, success and seniority. Of course you had to be good to warrant being listed as the top drawing card (which is essentially what being an ozeki still was at the time), but I'd wager it was much like pro-wrestling is nowadays, in that winning without being popular with the audience wasn't enough. If you were one of those ozeki who got there through your overwhelming popularity, you pretty much held the rank until you stopped competing; not a good thing if you were stuck behind one of those rikishi since the one-ozeki-per-side limit was stricted adhered to. This Kimenzan looks like a guy who suffered from that; having very good results but being behind Hiraiwa and then Kashiwado for nearly his entire career, before a single ozeki ranking at the end of it.

The flipside of that was that, well, there had to be somebody ranked as ozeki, so if the regular guy was unable to compete (which seemingly meant that, often, he wouldn't even be listed on the banzuke), some regular komusubi or sekiwake might find himself ranked as ozeki briefly; see for example Tamagaki sitting out Haru 1815, which boosted Sendagawa into the ozeki rank for that basho, before he settled right back into the lower sanyaku ranks. Or take a look at Haru 1856 after which both ozeki quit and the two sekiwake Iozan* and Iwamigata (neither with overly spectacular results) were elevated into their ranks seemingly mostly due to seniority; they were forced to give way to more popular (and more successful) Unryu and Sakaizawa a few basho later and dropped back to sekiwake. I don't think anyone can possibly know how many of those early-era ozeki actually deserved the rank by modern standards, or how many deserving guys never reached it.

I think we need to get into the 1870s and 1880s before the handling of the ozeki rank became more based on performance than other factors, as part of noted maverick reformer Takasago's changes to make the banzuke rankings more meritocratic. And of course, once that happened (and after the messy interim phase ryafuji alluded to), the only possible way of dealing with the banzuke was to scrap the limitation of having only one ozeki per side.

* Also a pretty good example of what a mostly seniority-based banzuke-making looked like. If nobody above you retired, you really didn't advance, no matter your results. (Unless you were an obvious star, I suppose.)

After 1890 and Nishinoumi's official declaration as yokozuna on the banzuke tself - well, from what I've read popularity concerns still played a role for ozeki promotions and demotions (though now partially usurped by the new, higher rank, I would guess), but by and large I'd say it was now mainly results-based, though of course at first not as strictly defined as with today's 33-in-3 guideline and the kadoban regulations. That all of that came about is really not surprising, though; it's a guaranteed headache (and, in modern terms, a public relations nightmare) to base promotions and demotions on something objective like win-loss records but not have reasonably fixed guidelines for how to transform those objective results into yes/no decisions. Gut-based decisions only get you so far when people can just point to the numbers and ask you what the hell you were thinking when you confirmed or rejected some particular guy.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Asashosakari

[Sasanishiki]

I think we need to get into the 1870s and 1880s before the handling of the ozeki rank became more based on performance than other factors, as part of noted maverick reformer Takasago's changes to make the banzuke rankings more meritocratic.

That echoes changes in wider Japanese society at this time, with the expansion of the education system, meritocratic appointments to government positions based on examinations, and the abolition of the old class system (including the samurai) that had existed for the previous 200+ years.

[Harry]

I think we need to get into the 1870s and 1880s before the handling of the ozeki rank became more based on performance than other factors, as part of noted maverick reformer Takasago's changes to make the banzuke rankings more meritocratic.

That echoes changes in wider Japanese society at this time, with the expansion of the education system, meritocratic appointments to government positions based on examinations, and the abolition of the old class system (including the samurai) that had existed for the previous 200+ years.

Yes, the Meiji restoration (of the emperor among other things), opening of the country to the rest of the world, no more mage wearing (only rikishi excepted), etc. A time of great change. Japan went from a closed feudal country to an open one with a democracy in a very short time, farming and small trades to industry and transistors in 100 years (the rest of the world took about 1000 years for the same level of change I'd say). Today Japan seems further ahead in many ways, though not all.