The Aki banzuke has been released, so we can ask a couple of questions. How did my prediction do? What was the banzuke committee drinking?
San’yaku
This played out exactly as predicted. Terunofuji has now made it 3 straight years as the sole East Yokozuna. East Ozeki Kotozakura (10-5) and West Ozeki Hoshoryu (9-4-2) maintain their ranks. All five incumbents at Sekiwake and Komusubi finished with winning records, and they will be joined by demoted Ozeki Takakeisho, so we’ll have four Sekiwake and two Komusubi. And as predicted, S1e Abi (8-7) and S1w Onosato did not switch sides, and neither did K1e Daieisho (8-7) and K1w Hiradoumi (10-5).
M1-M12
Here’s what I wrote in the prediction post: “This part of the banzuke should be fairly predictable. Based on the usual rank-record math and precedence of East over West, there is a clear rank order, with only a handful of ties.” Turns out that I was correct for M1-M4 and M8-M12, but the banzuke committee made some unorthodox choices in between. I had the correct tiebreakers for Oho vs. Mitakeumi, Wakamotoharu vs. Shodai, Endo vs. Midorifuji, Ichiyamamoto vs. Oshoma, Roga vs. Sadanoumi, and Bushozan vs. Kinbozan. What I did not see coming was Ura getting a minimal half-rank demotion from M4w to M5e after a 6-9 record. In a similar vein, M1e Meisei only dropped 5 ranks after his 4-11, and M3w Gonoyama fell 3 ranks after going 5-10. As a consequence, M14e Wakatakakage (11-4) ended up two full ranks lower than predicted, and M12w Churanoumi (10-5) also got less of a promotion.
M13-M17
I at least had the humility to write: “I have little confidence in the order here, and there is even some uncertainty in who’ll be ranked here as opposed to in Juryo.” And still some of the decisions left me picking up my jaw off the floor. I did correctly pick the three Juryo promotions—J1w Onokatsu (9-6), J8e Shirokuma (12-3), and J3e Kitanowaka (8-7)—and even place Kitanowaka at his actual landing spot of M16w, but that’s about all I got right. The biggest head-scratcher is the committee leaving M13e Hokutofuji and M17e Nishikifuji at their prior ranks despite their 6-9 records. Yup, that’s not a typo. I can’t think of another instance when a top-division rikishi got to keep rank with 9 losses, except for the 2011 scandal banzuke when a number of wrestlers were forcibly retired. And it’s very rare for the lowest man in the division to stick around even with a 7-8, much less a 6-9. It’s not like they didn’t have options: either M15e Chiyoshoma (5-5-5) or my pick, M5e Onosho (0-4-11), would have been a more palatable choice to occupy M17e, as would J10e Shishi (11-4) or J6w Tamashoho (9-6). I am completely at a loss to explain this decision.
In all, I placed 29 of 42 rikishi at the correct rank and record. I missed Takarafuji’s placement by half a rank, several others by 1 to 1.5 ranks, Wakatakakage by two full ranks, and Shirokuma by 2.5 (that one, at least, is on me). It’s not clear if this banzuke is a one-off oddity, or whether some of the long-held rules of banzuke construction need to be rethought going forward.
Discover more from Tachiai (立合い)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Those Hokutofuji and Nishikifuji decisions set a very bad precedent. Predictability in making these decisions lends them credibility. When predictability goes out the window, the credibility of the sport is jeopardized.
Maybe the powers that be read your banzuke predictions and don‘t want U to get it all right…
Nishikifuji is of course a wow surprise, as it happened never before in history, but according to your maths he, Onosho and Chiyoshoma were all M20e and Nishikifuji had the most wins in Nagoya. That would be a somewhat logical explanation. But Onosho losing 13 ranks, Chiyoshoma four and Nishikifuji not even a half one remains extremely strange.
At least in the Sanyaku ranks they followed the rules (and the logic).
The math does offer that explanation, but at some point the math has to go out the window if someone’s record is bad enough that they can’t stay in the division, and before yesterday, everyone who’s ever thought about banzuke construction considered that a certainty for someone with a 6-9 record from the last rung. In the past they’ve pulled up rikishi without promotable records to send down someone with a less egregious rank/record combo than Nishikifuji. E.g. Nagoya 2013, when Sokokurai had a 6-9 from M15w (with M16w the last rank) and was replaced by J7e Asahisho (9-6).
Exactly.
I think if I had to summarize my opinion on what they’re doing these days, it’s this: I like that they’re largely going by the numbers (1 win = 2 ranks) where that is possible. I dislike basically everything they choose to do in the cases where it isn’t.
At some point it stops being “committee discretion” and veers into “disregard of what actually happened on the dohyo”.
But U said it yourself: there were six rikishi who should have gone to Juryo and only two to come up. In Nagoya 2013 it was five down against four up and therefore only half as wild as this time. That said, Sokokurai’s maths were better than Asahisho’s which isn‘t the case with Nishikifuji vs Shishi. (I would have liked them very much to promote the Ukrainian and so treating Onosho, Chiyoshoma and Nishikifuji equally.)
Right, but there’s a difference between “should go to Juryo if there’s a reasonable candidate to replace them (Takarafuji)” and “must go to Juryo, and we’ll just pull up the best available Juryo KK to replace them (Nishikifuji)”
I can‘t follow U there. Why is one a „should go“ and the other a „must go“?
The 42 rikishi with the best math results should form Makuuchi. There is a possible point of view to see Nishikifuji among those. I mean, is an 11-4 from J10 really better than a 6-9 in Makuuchi? I‘m not so sure about that.
Well, I can’t follow their thinking after this banzuke, but in all of previous modern sumo history, you had to have certain results to stay at a certain rank. No one stays at Sekiwake with a 6-9, no matter whom they have to pull up. Same for the bottom of Makuuchi, bottom of Juryo, etc. It’s not about the relative merit of the replacement candidate, it’s simply “you didn’t do enough.”
I think we agree that there are a lot of rikishi who „didn‘t do enough“ this time: Onosho, Asanoyama, Chiyoshoma, Nishikifuji, Kitanowaka, Tamashoho and Shishi. Still, they had to place two of them in Makuuchi and I don’t think Nishikifuji being one of them is scandalous.
I mean, every single person in the English-language sumo community who’s thought about banzuke construction gave Nishikifuji exactly 0% chance of staying, even if it can somehow be justified post-hoc.
Scandalous, maybe not. Highly unusual? Definitely. Two guys go 6-9 and face no change in rank for the first time in like 60 years (5/2011 exempted) …and they’re both on the same banzuke. I am certainly going to need to update my ranking criteria for the next banzuke.
Yeah, the real question is whether they just lost their minds for a hot sec or whether we can expect more decisions like this in the future
I‘ve just finished my 17 queries and can now tell U that there were four previous occasions when a rikishi kept his place with a 6-9, the last being Tochinonada in May 2011.
May 2011 is a special case. That was the yaocho scandal.
I found 3: 1962, 1967, and 2011, which as Andy says was the “technical examination tournament” right after multiple rikishi were forcibly retired due to match-fixing; that banzuke has all sorts of crazy exceptions. And note that none were at the bottom of the division.
I’ve read somewhere that Onosho had surgery on his ankle. Could they have decided to demote him, knowing that he might not compete at all this September? (although I’ve also read he started basic practice). This still doesn’t fully explain ‘saving’ Nishikifuji with a 6-9 record at M17e, but there aren’t many other ‘logical’ explanations.
That could be a factor in demoting Onosho, but they didn’t need to keep Nishikifuji to do so—keeping Chiyoshoma or promoting Shishi/Tamashoho would have been much less unprecedented.
There was one more in 1941. Anyway, Hokutofuji and Nishikifuji not losing a place with 6-9 obviously isn‘t a first, but it is (was?) very rare. Maybe a basho with eight demotable records is quite rare, too?
Both the match scheduling and the banzuke making worked very differently in 1941. There were 6-9’s getting promoted on those rankings, too, not merely holding steady.
Until this banzuke, I thought 6-9 required a lowering of rank. I understood that 7-8 record might retain their rank but could not be elevated; and 8-7 might retain their rank but could not be demoted. This is a definite curveball.
Don‘t you think they did it to somehow ‚conserve‘ the crumbling Top Division Crew?
No, I think they didn’t feel like they had a solid promotion candidate.
Agree. I’d rather be more lenient with rikishi who had an injury (Onosho and Chiyoshoma in this case) vs. one who fought every day and ended up 6-9. But their thinking is clearly different. However, just like they ignored precedents in this case, they might just ignore this case in the future (even in a very similar situation).
Dear Iksumo
U were wrong: as we now know, there have been precedents for no rank change with a 6-9 in (modern) sumo history.
But U were also right: nobody who played GTB kept Nishikifuji in Makuuchi! Thanks to Moti for this information.
Both basho referenced in the 60s had fewer than 42 rikishi in the top division and featured promotions with 7-8 records and needless promotions to komusubi that exacerbated their banzuke’s problems. There was nothing modern about their banzuke construction. It counts as precedent to some degree, but there was no reason to believe it contained any predictive power in 2024.
Obviously the Natsu 2011 basho never counts for anything with 15 sekitori being forced into retirement. Anytime you’re checking the database and see that something weird happened in 2011, alarm balls should be going off.
All very good observations and of course I‘d never say that not demoting Nishikifuji was normal. I‘m only fighting against expressions in the vein of „they must have lost their minds“.
If there is a post-hoc explanation like „Nishikifuji had the most wins of all those rikishi who landed on a virtual M20e“ there is no need to cry wolf.
I‘d rather think that Nagoya 2024 brought very unusual results and therefore produced a very unusual banzuke.
Our point is that the results weren’t that unusual and did not require doing something as extreme as leaving 6-9 in place, especially at the bottom of the division. For a recent example, you just have to look at Hiradoumi getting promoted from J8 with a 10-5 record exactly two years ago to replace M17 Chiomaru who was, you guessed it, 6-9. The equivalent move here was promoting Shishi who went 11-4 from J10.
Promoting a J8 with 10-5 or a J10 with 11-4 seems quite extreme, too. This time they decided pro Makuuchi, last time pro Juryo. Looks a lot like a toss-up.
Btw. there have been less promotions from J10 to Makuuchi than keeping places with a 6-9, but there was one in 1939.
…from J10 with a 11-4 is what I meant, of course.
A good banzuke for Fuji-san!
Onosho and Takayasu effectively had the same record and little difference in ranks. Takayasu went down 12 rather than 15 places, but Onosho went down 13. I suppose not a massive difference, but hard to fathom with Nishikifuji wallowing down there. Its always seemed to me that Onosho has bad banzuke luck, but its getting harder to sustain the belief that its not the result of someone not liking him..
The Ura one is easy to see – M5E was always a problem that needed some solution, and that is as good as any, IMO. Hokutofuji — well..
On the bright side, Tamashoho is within striking distance of being able to cut his teeth in Makuuchi!
On the not so bright side, I heard reports from Japan that Terunofuji has lost 10kg related to his diabetes. I wonder if we’ll see him this basho? If we do, I wonder if it will be his last?
I don’t like the Banzuke Committee because I believe they treat absences punitively. In the logic of the world outside Sumo, an absence would be treated less severely than a loss. Now, in the case of Onosho, they seem to be treating an absence MORE severely. I just cannot take these people seriously.
I don‘t know about other sports treating absences better than losses. Maybe U have some examples? In tennis, where they also have rankings, an absence is a loss, too.
Nobody in team sports loses their status when they are out injured, unless it’s long term and/or severe. They do not lose their ability just because they were out injured. In sumo. we frequently see able rikishi under-ranked after returning from kyujo, which leads to mismatches, sometimes to the benefit of the rikishi. I do accept that rikishi should come back at a lower level after a long kyujo. The absence = loss formula is too punitive. I don’t know about tennis, but because the format of tennis tournaments is different, a low seed, or unseeded player, still has the potential to win the whole thing. A rikishi who has been demoted to juryo doesn’t. Once I realized that the Banzuke is set up as a reward/punishment system, and not as a valid ranking system. I lost interest in it. And when it comes to the yokozuna, and to a lesser extent. ozeki, the formula is thrown out the window, precisely because applying it would not show their actual ability.
1) Team sports are not comparable to single sports like tennis or sumo when it comes to injuries because it’s very rare that a whole team is injured.
2) In tennis a grand slam tournament consists of 128 players. All the others are „Juryo“.
3) If a rikishi is out of form and loses, say, 13 matches, it’s normal that he falls down the banzuke and even out of Makuuchi from the middle Maegashira ranks.
Now, tell me, isn’t an injured rikishi very much out of form? And isn’t it therefore only correct to have him fall, too? I see nothing punitive in that!
Aki 2022 Abi K1 0-0-15
Kyusho 2022 Abi M9 12-3 yusho
Abi was demoted, returned with Komosubi skills intact and fattened his victory tally against lower ranked opponents. Seems like clear evidence of over-demotion to me.
The banzuke is a seesaw game, examples like yours are quite common with or without injuries. This time Meisei, Wakamotoharu and Gonoyama seem to be ranked too low and Endo too high according to their (guessed) ability.
“Nobody in team sports loses their status when they are out injured.”
I disagree and I offer Drew Bledsoe as my example. In team sports, your teammates are fighting for your job. Drew went down and Tom Brady took over. It’s just as cutthroat, IMHO.
That wasn’t really a typical case, but I should have said “rarely” I’m really thinking about the short term “one-off” kyujo, like the one I cite for Abi in my reply to Hebern. If kadoban is needed for Ozeki, maybe it might be good for other ranks too.
One word : Isegahama. Enough said.
Dare I hope at a Takayasu yusho coming in from the M15 spot? Should give him a less strenuous early run to keep fresh for the final week.
Iksumo – I think your photo of Sake explains this Banzuke!!!
Trying to get a clue to evolving ideas at a drinking session:
‚Certainly we will have at least [x] rikishi missing for injuries while basho goes on. So, if we let down our underperformers from lower maegashira ranks too early, half of Juryo will come up and put everything into a mess…‘