Ozeki Kotozakura made good on his potential and wrapped up 2024 with a 14-1 record and his first yusho. In doing so, he became the fourth man to capture a title in 2024: joining Yokozuna Terunofuji in January (13-2) and July (12-3); M17 Takerufuji in March (13-2); and K/S Onosato in May (12-3) and September (13-2). In all those ranks and records we find a way to historically situate a yusho-year.
A basic way to evaluate a year of yusho victories is tallying the number of wins by the champion. Since 1958 (excluding 2011 and 2020 when there were only 5 basho) the average number of wins for the six yusho is 81.5. By that metric, any total greater than 82 wins is above average and anything below 81 is below average.
In 2024 the win total was 77: well below average. Since 1958, only five years saw a lower win total (’61, ‘75, ’99,’22, ’23) while 2 years saw an equal number of wins (’72, ’03).
Another way to gage the strength of each championship is to consider the rank of the champion. We could call this rank-quality (RQ). For RQ I awarded 5 points for every yokozuna championship; 3 for every ozeki; 2 for every sekiwake; and one for every komosubi. For every maegashira championship I subtracted the rank value of the rikishi. In this system, the highest RQ value for one year would be 30: representing a yokozuna (5 points) winning each of the 6 basho.
The RQ for 2024 was -1. Terunofuji’s two wins for 10 points; plus 3 for Onosato’s wins as a komosubi (1 point) and sekiwake (2 points); plus 3 for Kotozakura’s win as an ozeki; minus 17 points for Takerufuji’s win at M17. The average RQ for a basho-year is just under 21.5. Once again, in 2024 the average rank of yusho winners was well below average.
It is now a rather simple exercise to add the annual total of championship wins and the rank quality. The highest possible score in such a system would be 120: this represents a yokozuna winning each basho with a 15-0 record. We might call this a championship quality (CQ) score. The average CQ score since 1958 is 103. The CQ score for 2024 was 76: 77 wins + -1 RQ. A 76 RQ score basically translates to an M1 winning each basho of the year with 12 or 13 wins. Not exactly compelling sumo.
In short, 2024 continued an era of mediocre yusho years.
2024 was below average for the number of wins and the rank of winners. This has been the case every year since 2019. The average number of wins in a year is 81.5. The average rank quality is 21.5. The average sum of these numbers- the championship quality- is 103. Since 2019 numbers look like this:
| Year | Wins (81.5) | Rank quality (21.5) |
Championship quality (103) |
|
2019 |
80 | 11 |
91 |
|
2020 |
66 |
-24 |
42 |
|
2021 |
80 |
19 |
99 |
|
2022 |
74 |
-3 |
71 |
|
2023 |
74 |
18 |
92 |
|
2024 |
77 |
-1 |
76 |
Again, in 2020 there were only 5 basho, so that year’s totals are not considered in the averages. Even so, every year since 2019 has been below average in every metric. This is not only a six year lull; it is an historical 6 year lull. The 74 wins in 2022 and again in 2023 represent the lowest total for any year since 1958. The rank quality of -3 in 2022 is the worst for any year of the six-basho era. The -1 RQ of 2024 is only “bettered” (ehhh…worsened?) by the -2 RQ of 1991. The 71 CQ of 2022 and 76 CQ of 2024 are the worst 2 scores of any year.
There has never been a span of yusho as weak as 2019-2024. 1972-1976 and 1998-2003 had similar lulls. But in both periods, there were at least some categories that were average to above average.
|
Year |
Wins (81.5) | Rank quality (21.5) |
Championship quality (103) |
|
1972 |
77 | 3 |
80 |
|
1973 |
84 |
26 |
110 |
|
1974 |
78 |
21 |
99 |
|
1975 |
76 |
17 |
93 |
|
1976 |
81 | 21 |
102 |
|
1998 |
79 | 7 |
86 |
|
1999 |
76 |
20 |
96 |
|
2001 |
81 | 4 |
85 |
|
2001 |
79 |
19 |
98 |
|
2002 |
80 | 24 |
104 |
|
2003 |
77 |
22 |
99 |
The championship quality from 2019-2024 has been consistently, completely, and historically below average. When you consider just the rank and record of the yusho winner, 2019-2024 is the worst span of yusho quality in the six basho era.
Will 2025 bring more of the same? There is reason to look forward with hope. If Takerufuji duplicates his success, it will certainly be at a better rank than M17. Onosato is now an ozeki. Kotozakura is fishing for tuna in January. Any basho won by these men in 2025 will improve the RQ and CQ score for the year. Hopefully they (and others!) can push each other to greater heights. Even if those “greater heights” only represent a return to normalcy.
Discover more from Tachiai (立合い)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Funny numbers U‘re presenting here.
And who exactly pretends that they tell us anything about the quality of Sumo?
Anyway, whatever negativity U and other commenters are trying to spread here, for me 2024 was a fantastic year of Sumo. We saw the rise of Onosato, who could easily become a dai Yokozuna; we saw the great Terunofuji reach that goal; we saw Kotozakura keeping on getting stronger and having a fantastic first Ozeki year; and we saw the arrival of Takerufuji who promises great things instead of his nagging injury.
Where do we find all this in your numbers, I wonder.
Thanks for the feedback. This metric is very limited to judging the quality of sumo as a whole. The only thing it describes is who is winning the yusho and how proficient he is at doing it. It gives a sense of the quality of the champion- his average wins and rank, but doesn’t necessarily tell us much more. Though I think the data can help point in more big-picture directions.
As for pretty much all the things you asked about- they aren’t in the numbers, but they are pretty much the exact same things I myself mentioned in my last paragraph.
The post isn’t meant to be negative. That was certainly not my intention. I like numbers and I like sumo. When my likes got together they had this baby. But the numbers are what they are. 70s are lower than 80s. That isn’t positive or negative. That’s just math.
The idea is something like this: usually there are a range of abilities in elite sport, and when athletes of the highest quality emerge, they dominate. Think Terunofuji now. Or Hakuho in recent times. Or Serena Williams in tennis. Or Nadal, Federer and Djokovic in tennis for an example where three happened to emerge at about the same time. It is difficult to mount an argument that the reason no one in particular dominates currently is because we have an extraordinary number of high-quality rikishi, as on the rare occasions Terunofuji turns up, he tends to dominate, so he’s clearly elite. So, in this way dominance correlates with quality.
That’s not to say that quality is the same as interest or excitement. Some people like it when almost anyone has a chance to win each basho. But, others find it a bit boring if it ends up being totally random. Of course, some will say its boring if just one person completely dominates. But, others like seeing if some underdog can put together a quality tournament to fell the giant. And others appreciate the quality aspects that provide the dominators with their dominance.
The rikishi you name could all enter the elite, along with Hoshoryu. But none are the finished product yet. Onosato needs a dependable plan B (and C and D); Kotozakura needs to maintain and hopefully improve his mobility; Hoshoryu needs to lock in on winning rather than bullying; Takerufuji is a ways off. They could be something like a Nadal/Federer/Djokovic or a Hakuho/Ama/Kakuryu, but they aren’t there yet. As those numbers nicely reflect.
I generally agree but would say Hoshoryu is trying to intimidate rather than bully. You can dislike his game face or the way he waits for his opponent to put their fists down first, but I have never heard that he is violent or threatening to anyone outside of a match, or doing anything unethical in the match.
Personally, i kinda liked that transition era between 2019 and 2024 where you say it was “below average”. I felt that at the start of each basho, really anyone (well mostly anyone) in the top division had a potential chance to win the yusho. It was kinda exciting. A bit like a lottery.
I think it was maybe even more motivating for any maegashira rank and filer because they were probably thinking “Eh ! If i do mostly well, i could really win it this time !”. Something i believe was probably really rare during the long Hakuho era where the yusho were really determined between him and a handful of ozeki. (Not even sekiwake or komusubi.) And all the other rikishi below were like “If i can just get kachi-kochi and fetch a few kensho in that tournament, i’m good !”
sigh I don’t know. Maybe i’m way overexaggerating. I don’t want to undermine the motivation and fighting spirit of any sekitori. But this what it felt like to me.
Anyway, i think we are nearing the end of that transition era now. As we are starting to get again a really good strong core of talented sekitori at the top of the sanyaku now. The only stag that is left is crippled Terunofuji and my guts is telling me that he won’t finish 2025. He’s about to pass the torch to a more healthy and present Yokozuna.
Thanks for the feedback! You are spot on about the transition era observation. If this post doesn’t get flamed out of existence a follow up post would be how this has actually been one of the most competitive eras in history. So while we haven’t had the big names putting up big totals, we have had close races for yusho titles: and that brings its own excitement!
You are almost certainly right about Terunofuji too. I’ve been working with yokozuna stats and I’ve been struck at how many finish their fighting careers on the January banzuke. I wouldn’t be surprised if Teru added his name to that list. Especially if Kotozakura comes through in January.
We can consider 2007-2017 as “peak Hakuho.” During this time, the yusho was won by a Yokozuna 51 times (37 Hakuho, 6 Asashoryu, 5 Harumafuji, 2 Kakuryu, 1 Kisenosato), Ozeki 12 times (4 of them right before Yokozuna promotion, including Hakuho), Sekiwake once (Terunofuji, right before his Ozeki promotion), and maegashira once (Kyokutenho). That’s one rank-and-filer winning in 11 years, vs. nine in the 7 years since then. Different times indeed.
It’s very interesting to use metrics to try to measure and compare eras of sumo. Ultimately, our preferences for what we look for in a bout or a tournament or a champion will always be subjective. It’s still fun to use data to examine those points and attempt to defend our opinions.
I think the year started out with quite a bit of hope which was dashed with Kirishima’s injury and lackluster performance. Add in the continuing Miyagino drama. The year was definitely hit by the absence of the Yokozuna. But with the last two tournaments, I think we see more hope going into 2025 as the young guns really start to take over in earnest. Mark July 2025 as a particularly important time.
I just wanted to say welcome and thanks for being a new contributor to Tachiai. I don’t generally think in terms of those kinds of statistics, and like others have said, I have enjoyed the variety and openness of bashos in the past few years. But there’s room for all kinds of posts and perspectives here, and I appreciate you taking the time and effort.
Thank you for the kind words!
And then there’s 2010: Wins = 87, RQ = 30, CQ = 117, just 3 short of highest possible.
C’mon! Don’t steal my future blog posts!
Yeah, that year has the highest score…but there are a few close to it.
Haha, I’m the resident stats guy but I welcome the company! I kinda guessed 2010 would be hard to beat, and just checked a couple around it, so there’s plenty of scope for an actual analysis.
I think the data and the analysis is fascinating, but the framing around quality feels like a misdirect. Personally, I found many of the tournaments this year to be extremely entertaining and more dramatic than a scenario where the quality score is higher because it’s just Hakuho winning over and over again.
It’s clear that if Terunofuji were healthy he would mop the field all year long, and under the framing of this data via language, that would be higher quality. But for this viewer, that would be much less entertaining than things like a historic victory by Takerufuji on a bum ankle, or Onosato’s rise and slight stumble, or Kotozakura vs The Nephew.
I, for one, hope next year is of such middling quality as well. Again, great analysis, but the framing seems a bit off.
Whenever I see dominance equated directly with quality, what I’m actually reading is something like this:
“I can’t stay interested in a sport if there are more than two competitors I need to pay attention to in order to get my ‘I’m with the winners!’ dopamine fix.”
Nope. What you are actually reading is that its statistically very unlikely for the two things to not be correlated. Many people who are interested in quality still like to back an underdog..
I mean people who equate dominance of a few with the quality of the entire competition they’re watching. Comments to that effect were absolutely epidemic in the sumo fandom the moment Hakuho retired. (Curiously nearly all of them ignoring the fact that he hadn’t been there for half the tournaments for years anyway.) I’ll maintain my position that it’s generally indicative of people who simply don’t care about anything other than winners.
And of course there’s correlation (there basically always is), just not always the one people think there is. Phil Taylor used to absolutely trounce all competition in PDC darts, but while he was undoubtedly the best player ever, a large part of it was that the sport was split into two organisations at the time (which started out broadly equal in overall talent, Taylor aside, and then the PDC gradually poached more and more “depth” talent). Degree of dominance says very, very little about the overall health of a sport, or the interest it is capable of creating. Golf survived the disappearence of Tiger Woods as a dominator just fine, too, despite lots of doomsaying about the “parity era” that followed.
The only time the departure of a dominant star is potentially problematic is when he/she was the only thing that made the sport prominent to begin with. Sumo hasn’t been in that position in centuries, notwithstanding what Chiyonofuji superfans / Takanohana superfans / Asashoryu superfans / Hakuho superfans might like to claim (usually long past the time it has become obvious that they’re wrong).
Just to add, the point I was getting at in a very roundabout way is this: These “quality at the very top == quality overall”-based discussions are always, always started with the implication that “less than usual quality at the very top” is somehow a sign of a problem for the sport in question. That’s the only reason people concern themselves with the question in the first place. And it’s a completely unfounded assumption in the vast majority of cases. Professional sports don’t exist just to put shiny numbers in record books, they exist to entertain and make money. Sumo in the last 10 years has been a prime example that there are many different ways to achieve that goal, so a myopic focus on “quality” is just completely pointless.
You are right: being number one is generally overrated and sometimes really silly. But don‘t forget it‘s every athlete’s dream to be on top. It‘s the motor of all we get to see in a competition.
Its a fair point – this is about “peak” quality – quality distribution is another question entirely.
However, while some people might think the way you suggest, I don’t know that many do (at the least, many I know specifically don’t). Being worried about the sport is certainly not the main reason I concern myself with this – I have zero concerns about this currently in sumo. It is merely a period where we don’t yet have any really elite wrestlers (apart from Terunofuji), and the metrics say nothing about the general quality as you say. But, I do find the rise and demise of elite competitors across eras interesting. Is that because I don’t care about anything other than winners? Perhaps, but then its hard to explain why I’m a fan of Sadanoumi. And, it seems strange to me to expect people following sport to have little interest in winners.
Well put. Completely agree that quality is a characteristic across the entirety of the banzuke and not dependent on the dominance of the tournament winner.
I’m struggling see in what way the framing was off. The article is clearly about quality, and doesn’t even mention excitement or interest. If quality is something you’re interested in, it provides some nice metrics to quantify this. I appreciated this new way of looking at that. But, I don’t recall the article saying you to HAVE to consider quality as the most important.
I think your last sentence captures one of the issues nicely – that some like it when many rikishi have a chance to win the yusho, but are less comfortable with the idea that this reflects reduced quality, which is almost necessarily does. But, if you are prepared to accept this trade-off, then you can actually use these quality metrics in the “opposite” way – to quantify how “competitive” a year was. So, the framing seems spot-on to me.
Thanks for the close reading! I think my next post will definitely have to be about “competitiveness.” As I mentioned in a previous reply, the past few years have been among the most competitive in the modern era.
I’m struggling to see in what way the framing is off. It was clearly directed at quality, and doesn’t even mention interest or excitement. If you are interested in quality, it provides some nice metrics for thinking about this. I hadn’t thought about it in this way before, so I found it informative. But, I don’t recall the article saying anywhere that you HAVE to consider quality the most important thing.
I think there might be a bit of unconscious having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too going on: that some are keen on having “competitive” tournaments where many rikishi have a chance to win, but are reluctant to see this as reflecting reduced quality, which it almost necessarily does.
Sorry for the double-post – website seems to having problems. If an administrator can remove the first duplicate (and this one), that would be great.
No worries. I’ll leave both. A reply came in on the other one and your other one adds a bit more.
I think the issue is that quality is found up-and-down the banzuke…not just the dominance of the eventual winner. In an era of more winners from lower ranks, is that an indication of improved “quality” or a decline in quality? It’s an interesting conversation.
It would be kind of ‚quality seed‘, as you expect them to move upwards swiftly on the banzuke. For me it‘s all a battle of words, as I appreciate a sparkling performer in every division and grade. Since someone invented a statistic measure of their quality and put it in relation to a win/rank construction, it would lead to a better overall depiction. Kachikoshi streaks are interesting.
These figures illustrate what happens, when a Yokozuna lacks to compete 4/6 basho of a year (and causes damage to possible successors when he‘s randomly in the game). They illustrate, why we don’t like to see all three ozeki losing their bouts simultanously. So I think they are thoroughly valid for judging overall quality of sumo. Hoping for the dry spell to end soon!
I‘ve now read all the comments pretending there was a connection between these numbers and the overall quality of Sumo. I still think it‘s only an assertion. What that (gratuitous) statistic shows is the dominance of the top ranks and that’s it.
Some thoughts – As others have said these indexes are obviously a measure of high ranker dominance, the highest scores of 90, 30 and 120 would be achieved with a single entirely dominant Yokozuna. In that case we would all be complaining that sumo was predictable and boring and moreso that the talent pool was sadly lacking as there was no-one capable of stepping up to challenge this one single stellar individual. Isn’t this what we see in some of the good-but-not-greatest soccer leagues in Europe, where the same one club like Paris St Germain in France (6 championships in the last 7) or Glasgow Celtic in Scotland (12 in the last 13) wins year after year, but no-one would ever suggest this means that these leagues have higher quality than the more competitive leagues which produce a range of winners and sometimes surprise champions, as occurs in England and, recently at least, in Italy. In soccer of course you have international club games and tournaments to gauge which are the strongest leagues based on European performance of several of the top clubs (Uefa publish co-efficients and use them to allocate qualifying places) whereas in sumo we don’t have that kind of data to compare years. However, I would guess that in the soccer data there is no correlation between the “championship dominance’ factor and the actual strength/quality of the league and would expect the same in sumo.
I think what you have done is great work and still interesting for “championship dominance” and would make one refinement which would be instead of using the rank at the time of the tournament, to use the winner’s best rank within 2 bashos either side. This especially applies to the -17 penalty for Takerufuji winning from M17 – maegashira ranks are far more transient than Yokozuna and Ozeki and someone getting a win just as they begin to emerge shouldn’t negatively impact the RQ as much as you have allowed it to in my opinion.
One last thought, if we feel these indexes are “sumo dominance” and not a full reflection of “sumo quality” we need to be thinking about what other factors help us define sumo quality. What could be thrown in to the model along with these dominance indexes? It’s genuinely difficult in a zero-sum game. Factors like number of special prizes awarded, rate of use of certain skilful kimarites, frequency of torinaoshi, tournaments remaining competitive to the last day, number of final day Darwin matches, absence of bouts lasting less than 3 seconds? There may be more and some of these you may feel don’t apply!
Dominance, or tournament performance quality of top rankers, I think, is the framing that makes the most sense to me. I think it’s clear right now that competitiveness is high not because the field is so great, but that no one yet has stepped up to the level of a dominant Yokozuna.
Though a cross-comparison between eras may help, though that opens up the whole debate of which wrestlers could perform better in which eras.
“which wrestlers could perform better in which eras” – now you really are getting controversial.. :D
I am late to this so won’t get involved in the discussion, except to say that your formula for calculating RQ is off. If you are giving 5 points for a Yokozuna and 1 for a komosubi, subtracting the M Number is way off, and totally distorts the result. I think 0 points for any Maegashira win would be more meaningful.
As it is now, a single basho by a low ranker completely dominates the RQ. For example, five wins by a Yokozuna and one by an M17 would give and RQ of 8. I think that would give a completely misleading impression of how the year went.
I say this in the spirit of encouragement, not criticism!
Thanks for the comment. I struggled with that aspect of it a bit. I am not sure a 0 for any Maegashira win is the answer though. Certainly there is some difference between M1 and M17. But you are right- an M17 throws everything way out. But in a way that is helpful- it at least alerts us to look closer. So in 2020 there are 2 M17 yushos: but we all agree that there is a big difference between Tokushoryu and Terunofuji!
If nothing else, having a -17 causes one to look closer at the situation. And closer examination is always good! For conversation if nothing else.
Very good, I almost fully agree. (I would probably assign the points as follows: lower Maegashira 0, joi Maegashira and Sanyaku 1, Ozeki 3 and Yokozuna 4 or 5.)
Late to the party, alas, but I’m a statistician and the arbitrary slapping of numbers onto outcomes to create constructs that are then said to capture or represent concepts such as “quality” or even “dominance” — well, that’s like nails on a chalkboard to me. For example, look at the maegashira yusho scoring — there’s a world of difference between Tochinoshin’s M3 ozeki run yusho and Tamawashi’s M3 yusho as a joi/sanyaku regular, and there’s an entire planetary system of difference between Terunofuji’s M17 yusho and that of Tokushoryu.
I know that this isn’t exactly the warmest feedback a new poster could get, so let me leaven it by saying I love reviews and comparisons in general and so I enjoyed the post in spite of the scoring thing that prompted the above whining and moaning. I look forward to reading more from you!
Corey- “there’s an entire planetary system of difference between Terunofuji’s M17 yusho and that of Tokushoryu.”
I completely agree! I address this somewhat in a forthcoming follow up. But in short, the numbers require us to look for the rest of the story.