Re: Akebono vs. other Konishiki + Musashimaru

[Koichi Wago <wago@loki.stanford.edu>]

  > I don't think that recently there have been 'questionable' bouts.  However,
  > during the early times of Akebono moving up the ranks with his record
  > breaking string of kachi koshi basho, his efforts against Konishiki were
  > sometimes (IMHO) not his best efforts.  Lately, the efforts of these three
  > sumo superstars has been exemplary.  I also saw the match where Akebono
  > sent Konishiki down to Sekiwake and agree that it was probably more
  > difficult for Akebono to take than for Konishiki.  But we must remember
  > that at the time Akebono was Yokozuna and the Yokozuna ia a different breed
  > of cat and has a lot of responsibility.  If he would have lost to Konishiki
  > his integrity definitly would have been called out.

I wish I could agree that there's no 'questionable' matches. As pointed out,
it took a while for both Akebono and Musashimaru to beat Konishiki, even 
after they became as strong as Konishiki to other rikishis. Some big media
such as Asahi Shimbun explained that it was 'ani-deshi make', meaning that 
after being trained by a senior when they were novices in sumo, they somehow
cannot beat the senior even after they become stronger. It sounds like the
same excuse as used to explain why so many 7-win-7-loss rikishis get
kachikoshi on senshuraku. A weekly magazine, "Shukan Post", which has
been doing a campaign against sumo-kyokai for more than 10 years, says
it's nothing but 'yaocho'. 

Shukan Post has brought up many problems related to sumo kyokai, including
unclearness of their ticket selling business and doping suspicion, but
among those, the biggest one is the 'yaocho' scandal. They have been
criticising it quite a long time since, as I remember, yokozuna Wajima was
still active. According to their report, there had been many yaochos 
involving money among many rikishis, or more frankly, most rikishis 
(they gave a few exceptions such as Fujizakura and more recently 
yokozuna Onokuni). I'm not saying that what they say is 100% correct.
Actually, first I didn't believe it at all thinking some former 
unsuccessful rikishi was fabricating a story to get money or something.  
But I was convinced that there was at least some truth in their report
when I read an interview of Tamanoumi Umekichi. He was a former sekiwake
before WWII, I guess, and was doing a commentator for NHK's sumo 
coverage for a long time. 

He admitted that he himself had done yaocho 
once, which he regretted very much, and had reallized that there shouldn't
be such a thing as yaocho. He talked to then rijicho Tokitsukaze, former
great yokozuna Futabayama, and Tokitsukaze was very surprised simply 
because he had no idea that there was yaocho, but took it seriously and
'sumo kansatsu iin', a committee to check 'mukiryoku sumo' or lame matches,
was formed. But it didn't work effectively for some reason. When ozeki
Tamanoshima was promoted yokozuna, he came to Tamanoumi to ask to use
a name 'Tamanoumi' as a yokozuna. Tamanoumi Umekichi agreed with one
condition: never do yaocho. Yokozuna Tamanoumi kept his promise until 
he lost to great yokozuna Taiho when we won his last yusho (32nd). 
Yokozuna Tamanoumi confessed to Tamanoumi Umekichi after tha basho 
crying. Tamanoumi Umekichi realized again that something must be done 
to keep young good rikishi from falling into yaocho. He talked to then
rijicho Kasugano, former yokozuna Tochinishiki, and Futagoyama, former
yokozuna Wakanohana I. But, according to Tamanoumi, they didn't have 
any word to say. Tamaoumi thought that it must wait until the next
generation, Dewanoumi, present rijicho, and Tokitsukaze, former ozeki 
Yutakayama, get a power in sumo kyokai. 
 
Shortly after this interview was published, Tamanoumi Umekichi died. 
After reading this article, I came to believe what Shukan Post said, 
if not entirely. I still don't want to believe Shukan Post 100%, because 
it means: a tsukebito of ozeki Kotozakura begged to Kotozakura's
opponent in a bathroom to lose a match so that Kotozakura would win
two consecutive bashos and be promoted yokozuna; in Chiyonofuji-era,
so many matches were set up that it was even possible to say who
would win the basho even before it began; Chiyonofuji dominated the 
sumo for a long time because he dominated 'yaocho' group; Most rikishi
accepted to 'sell' a match to Chiyonofuji because, if he refused, he
would have been beaten completely by Chiyonofuji in next jungyo so he
would rather accept yaocho and get money; when Asahifuji had a chance to
be promoted to yokozuna, Chiyonofuji offered to lose to him by 20 milliion
yen (I'm not sure, maybe 2 million yen, but very high price anyway); 
yokozuna Onokuni was rare 'gachinko' rikishi, who doesn't do yaocho, and
was considered a strange guy among yaocho group; Onokuni was first ever
yokozuna who got makekoshi, because he was 'gachinko' yokozuna; etc. 

Like I said, I don't want to believe these 100%, and I think some of
them are exaggeration or fabrication. What bothers me is that sumo
kyokai doesn't say anything but 'there is no yaocho' and doesn't 
show any basis on which I can believe those allegations are false. 
They did take a little action, though. Futagoyama rijicho made a rule
that if one gets a warning of 'mukiryoku sumo' from judges three times,
he will be forced out from basho for three days, or something like that. 
Sumo kyokai indeed gave several warinings to some rikishi such as 
Kotofuji and Kirinishiki. Konishiki and Musashimaru also once got the
warning. However, these incidents didn't draw much attention from big
media and this move has faded out once sumo regained popularity 
because of Waka-Taka. 

Sorry that my first post to this mailing list is something that bothers
you guys, sumoholic(?). But I also love sumo. I just want to enjoy sumo
without any doubt of yaocho. So if you think the above allegations are
totally wrong, I look forward to being convinced so that I can enjoy
sumo more. 

Koichi Wago