Re: Natsu basho Sansho awards

["Barbara Ann Klein" <baklein@attglobal.net>]

Doesn't it also have something to do with the ranks of the rikishis whom
they have beaten?

Babanoshuzan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dietmar Feger" <highjumper@adon.li>
To: "Sumo ML" <sumo@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Sent: Monday, 04 June, 2001 15:57
Subject: Re: Natsu basho Sansho awards


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Stefan Gelow <f95-sge@nada.kth.se>
> To: <sumo@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 10:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Natsu basho Sansho awards
>
>
> > >I was curious as to why only Kotomitsuki and Asashoryu picked up sansho
> > >awards. OK, they did well, and Asashoryu probably deserved his, but I
think
> > >there were other rikishi who should have recieved sansho as well.
> > >
> > >Kyokushuzan is one. In my opinion, he should have recieved the
kanto-sho,
> > >and possibly the shukun-sho as well, given that he got 11-4 from
Maegashira
> > >15. Higonoumi and Toki made the same score from near the bottom of the
> > >rankings (M11 and M13 respectively).
> > >
> > >Anyone else think the Kyokai (or whoever it is decides who the awards
go to)
> > >were a bit stingy this time?
> >
> > I thought so at the beginning, but I just realized why it happened as it
did:
> > Higonoumi, Toki and Kyokushuzan ALL had 11-4 records after ALL winning
on
> > day 15 and none of them had really done anything to be distinguished
from
> > the others. If only one or even two of them had won on day 15 while the
> > other(s) lost, I think they would have got the kanto-sho, but all three
> > simply couldn't get it (they hadn't been THAT outstanding) and therefore
> > none of them did. In my view, that Toki vs Kotomitsuki match definitely
> > seemed planned to give the winner a prize, but with the situation as it
was,
> > it wasn't possible.
> >
> > /Stefan Gelow
> >
>
____________________________________________________________________________
_____
>
> Sure, it was a difficult decision wheter to give the kanto-sho to only one
of them or to all three
> of them.
> If they had strictly followed their own rules, they should have given the
kanto-sho to Toki!
> I thought there was a rule or guideline for giving a kanto-sho:
> "a shin-nyumaku with 10-5"
> "a shin-sanyaku with 10-5"
> "a sai-nyumaku with 11-4" (returner as Toki was)
>
> Under this point of view, Toki should have deserved the kanto-sho as he
was a returner from Juryo.
> Or was this a further punishment for his car-accident?
>
> Feginowaka
>
>
>
>