Prior to the late fifties, the sky was the limit in terms of how many skaters any country could send to the World Figure Skating Championships. More accurately, the real limit was in who could afford to go. While some skating federations paid the way of full teams, others only financed the national champion and permitted other high ranking skaters in their country to attend if they paid for their own travel expenses. Still other countries left the cost of attending the World Championships completely up to the skaters themselves. Despite this, there was a marked increase in the number of entries at the World Championships in Paris in 1958.
THE NUMBERS GAME
In "Skating World" magazine, Dennis Bird lamented, "Before the War, except for the Olympic years, there were rarely more than a dozen in each event. Since 1947 the numbers have increased, and we have grown used to seeing about twenty ladies and fifteen men; the pairs have remained fairly constant at about twelve. This year, however, the entry was enormous: thirty ladies, twenty-four men, seventeen pairs and sixteen dance couples. (There were one or two non-starters, but not enough to reduce the entries.) The situation is serious. Twenty-nine girls, for instance, skating six figures, take, at the very least, some fifteen hours of actual skating time, not allowing for meals or coffee breaks. 7 a.m. starts become necessary, with skating continuing until well after tea-time each day. A competitor who has just skated has two or more hours to wait before her next figure, with inevitable strain on her morale. If she is unfortunate enough to be first to skate any one figure, the interval is five hours. And what of the judges? How can a human brain possibly maintain a constant standard of judging after nine or ten hours?... The remedy lies in restricting the entry, and it could be done very simply by using the European Championships as qualifying events. If, for instance, the top twelve skaters only in the European solo events were allowed in the World's, together with four each from the U.S.A. and Canada, there could not be a total entry of more than twenty. Some people may say that even that is too large, but at least it is manageable, and I hope the ISU will give urgent consideration to the subject."
From the early twentieth century well into the fifties, many domestic ice dance competitions would start with an initial round where all teams would perform the compulsory dance in question - often the Waltz or Tenstep in the early days of the Canadian and U.S. Championships, for instance - and a final 'championship' round consisting of the top four couples. In the preliminary or qualifying round, all teams would dance around the ice at the same time - sometimes being required to switch direction from counterclockwise to clockwise or to skate around chairs which marked the pattern. Though an ice dance competition conducted in this matter may seem primitive to us today, the format allowed judges to weed out the weaker couples early on and focus their attention on evaluating a smaller number of more capable couples more accurately. The format also shortened what at times would have been very long events, as waltzing competitions in the twenties and thirties in particular often drew huge numbers of competitive and recreational skaters alike.
The same elimination format used in early ice dancing competition was also employed in the U.S. in singles events to pare down fields after the figures. Spencer E. Cram discussed the reasoning behind this in a Q&A feature that appeared in "Skating" magazine in February of 1961. He wrote, "The timing and scheduling of a competition is one of the most difficult tasks to accomplish. Frequently total free skating, dance and pair finals will aggregate over eight hours. Scheduling has to be done with respect to public interest and ticket sales, three and one half hours maximum per night, free skating on days following compulsory figures whenever possible, etc. Having a set maximum of eight [skaters per discipline] makes it possible to accomplish this. The Referee has the authority to permit more than eight (but not more than fifteen) to free skate but not be judged when time permits. A line has to be drawn somewhere when classes of twenty and thirty are not uncommon. A percentage could be established, of course, but what purpose would be accomplished? Seldom anyone lower than the first four can enter the next higher competition anyway. To permit more than any given number to free skate and be judged when time permitted would be impractical. The given number might well be four or six rather than eight; eight, however, is the maximum that most competitions can handle."
In the mid-eighties, when more and more nations joining the ISU fold swelled the number of entries at international competitions, the struggle to find a solution to the problem of 'too many entries' became a recurring talking point. More than once, the possibility of using the European Championships and a "Pacific Championship" for non-European members as a qualifying competition was discussed and rejected. In 1982, the ISU voted to approve a "B" or consolation round if more than twenty-four skaters entered a competition. The combined results of the figures and short program (or the compulsory dances and OSP) determined which fifteen skaters or teams would make it to the final and which skated their free skating program or free dance separately in the "B" round. The "B" round was shortly thereafter changed to a semi-final, with seventeen skaters qualifying for the final by way of the combined figure and short program scores and the top three finishers in the semi-final earning the right to compete in the 'actual' competition. This short-lived attempt to separate the best from the rest was terribly unpopular with competitors and audiences alike and proved to be short-lived. It was decided at the 1986 ISU Congress that the top twenty-four entries after the initial rounds would advance to the final, with the remaining skaters being eliminated from the competition and placing twenty-fifth, twenty-sixth, etc. overall based on their rankings after the initial rounds.
Fast forward to the nineties. At the 1992 World Championships in Oakland, California, judges were faced with the seemingly impossible task of marking thirty-five men's short programs and forty women's short programs - no easy task under the 6.0 system to say the least! Though only twenty-four skaters made it through to the free skate in each discipline at the time, all too often judges were boxing themselves in and running out of marks, especially considering the fact that random draws didn't seed the top tier of skaters near the end.
Endless changes were made over the years to the qualifying round system at major ISU competition, from the number of skaters who made the cut to who did and didn't have to participate. At the June 1994 ISU Congress, the USFSA submitted a proposal "to eliminate the requirement that the previous year's top four placements in any given event at ISU Championships compete in qualifying rounds the following year, i.e. to bye these persons by name to the final round; no substitutions permitted." In 1995 and 1996, ten 'seeded' skaters (based on a classification sheet published by the ISU that took into account the results from the previous year's World Championships) weren't required to participate and the qualifying placements didn't factor into the overall result. Afterwards, all skaters were required to participate, with qualifying results factored in with short program and free skate scores to determine the overall result. For much of the period, at least one skater per discipline from the host country earned an automatic spot through the free skate regardless of their result in the qualifying rounds.
Long before the days of live streaming on ye olde internet, the only people who saw these qualifying rounds in their entirety were those in the building. Some exceptional skaters had bad days and didn't make even make it to the short program over the years. In 1993, Maria Butyrskaya and Tonia Kwiatkowski were the first notable victims. In 1994, Laetitia Hubert and Nicole Bobek followed suit. In the years that followed, Dan Hollander, Michael Shmerkin, Kevin van der Perren, Yulia Vorobieva and Tomáš Verner were among the top international skaters who failed to make the cut at one point or another.
While the qualifying rounds were popular with judges, they were highly unpopular with skaters. Some argued that having to perform two free skates made competitions too long and tiresome and that if the qualifying rounds were rarely televised - at least in their entirety - what was the point? Following the 2006 World Championships in Calgary, the ISU Congress voted to give them the boot, only to briefly reintroduce preliminary elimination rounds for lower ranking skaters at the 2011 and 2012 World Championships to whittle down the fields. This was axed when the system of requiring skaters to achieve a minimum scores to even attend the events was introduced. The system of requiring a certain score to even attend the World Championships was met with a similar disdain, many arguing that skaters from all ISU member federations should have the right to send one skater or team per discipline to an event called... the World Championships.
Skate Guard is a blog dedicated to preserving the rich, colourful and fascinating history of figure skating. Over ten years, the blog has featured over a thousand free articles covering all aspects of the sport's history, as well as four compelling in-depth features. To read the latest articles, follow the blog on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and YouTube. If you enjoy Skate Guard, please show your support for this archive by ordering a copy of the figure skating reference books "The Almanac of Canadian Figure Skating", "Technical Merit: A History of Figure Skating Jumps" and "A Bibliography of Figure Skating": https://skateguard1.blogspot.com/p/buy-book.html.
In June of 1959, at the Biennal ISU Congress in Tours, France, fifty-three delegates from twenty-three ISU member nations voted to pass a new rule that limited the number of entries that each member nation could send to the World Championships to two per discipline, or three if any competitor from that nation placed in the top twelve at the previous World Championships. Considering that the United States was the only country to boast more than three entries (four in men and women's singles and ice dancing in fact) at that year's World Championships in Colorado Springs, one has to wonder if this may have been targeted at the Americans, who medalled in all four disciplines that year.
However, as a response to the 1961 Sabena Crash that took the lives of the entire U.S. and cancelled the World Championships in Prague, in 1962 the ISU made an exception to the 'two skater' per nation, per discipline rule, allowing Barbara Roles Pursley to compete in the women's event based on her previous Olympic medal. At that spring's Biennal ISU Congress in Bergen, Norway, a Canadian proposal that U.S. entries in the 1963 and 1964 World Championships would not have to qualify for admission was approved. It was later decided that only the top five skaters or teams in each discipline would earn three entries for the following year at any ISU Championship. At 1982 ISU Congress in Stavanger, Norway, the rules were again revised, this time only permitting the top three finishers in singles and ice dancing to earn three entries. Pairs remained at five for some time before ultimately being changed to three as well.
QUALIFYING ROUNDS
From the early twentieth century well into the fifties, many domestic ice dance competitions would start with an initial round where all teams would perform the compulsory dance in question - often the Waltz or Tenstep in the early days of the Canadian and U.S. Championships, for instance - and a final 'championship' round consisting of the top four couples. In the preliminary or qualifying round, all teams would dance around the ice at the same time - sometimes being required to switch direction from counterclockwise to clockwise or to skate around chairs which marked the pattern. Though an ice dance competition conducted in this matter may seem primitive to us today, the format allowed judges to weed out the weaker couples early on and focus their attention on evaluating a smaller number of more capable couples more accurately. The format also shortened what at times would have been very long events, as waltzing competitions in the twenties and thirties in particular often drew huge numbers of competitive and recreational skaters alike.
The same elimination format used in early ice dancing competition was also employed in the U.S. in singles events to pare down fields after the figures. Spencer E. Cram discussed the reasoning behind this in a Q&A feature that appeared in "Skating" magazine in February of 1961. He wrote, "The timing and scheduling of a competition is one of the most difficult tasks to accomplish. Frequently total free skating, dance and pair finals will aggregate over eight hours. Scheduling has to be done with respect to public interest and ticket sales, three and one half hours maximum per night, free skating on days following compulsory figures whenever possible, etc. Having a set maximum of eight [skaters per discipline] makes it possible to accomplish this. The Referee has the authority to permit more than eight (but not more than fifteen) to free skate but not be judged when time permits. A line has to be drawn somewhere when classes of twenty and thirty are not uncommon. A percentage could be established, of course, but what purpose would be accomplished? Seldom anyone lower than the first four can enter the next higher competition anyway. To permit more than any given number to free skate and be judged when time permitted would be impractical. The given number might well be four or six rather than eight; eight, however, is the maximum that most competitions can handle."
In the mid-eighties, when more and more nations joining the ISU fold swelled the number of entries at international competitions, the struggle to find a solution to the problem of 'too many entries' became a recurring talking point. More than once, the possibility of using the European Championships and a "Pacific Championship" for non-European members as a qualifying competition was discussed and rejected. In 1982, the ISU voted to approve a "B" or consolation round if more than twenty-four skaters entered a competition. The combined results of the figures and short program (or the compulsory dances and OSP) determined which fifteen skaters or teams would make it to the final and which skated their free skating program or free dance separately in the "B" round. The "B" round was shortly thereafter changed to a semi-final, with seventeen skaters qualifying for the final by way of the combined figure and short program scores and the top three finishers in the semi-final earning the right to compete in the 'actual' competition. This short-lived attempt to separate the best from the rest was terribly unpopular with competitors and audiences alike and proved to be short-lived. It was decided at the 1986 ISU Congress that the top twenty-four entries after the initial rounds would advance to the final, with the remaining skaters being eliminated from the competition and placing twenty-fifth, twenty-sixth, etc. overall based on their rankings after the initial rounds.
Fast forward to the nineties. At the 1992 World Championships in Oakland, California, judges were faced with the seemingly impossible task of marking thirty-five men's short programs and forty women's short programs - no easy task under the 6.0 system to say the least! Though only twenty-four skaters made it through to the free skate in each discipline at the time, all too often judges were boxing themselves in and running out of marks, especially considering the fact that random draws didn't seed the top tier of skaters near the end.
Clipping about the qualifying rounds at the 1993 European Championships
At the 1992 ISU Congress in Davos, the ISU voted in favour of introducing qualifying rounds to help ease the burden on the judges. The singles fields were split in two, with the top twelve skaters from each group making it through to the short program and free skate. This was first tried at the 1993 European Championships in Helsinki.
Dan Hollander skating in the qualifying rounds of the 1996 World Championships in Edmonton
Endless changes were made over the years to the qualifying round system at major ISU competition, from the number of skaters who made the cut to who did and didn't have to participate. At the June 1994 ISU Congress, the USFSA submitted a proposal "to eliminate the requirement that the previous year's top four placements in any given event at ISU Championships compete in qualifying rounds the following year, i.e. to bye these persons by name to the final round; no substitutions permitted." In 1995 and 1996, ten 'seeded' skaters (based on a classification sheet published by the ISU that took into account the results from the previous year's World Championships) weren't required to participate and the qualifying placements didn't factor into the overall result. Afterwards, all skaters were required to participate, with qualifying results factored in with short program and free skate scores to determine the overall result. For much of the period, at least one skater per discipline from the host country earned an automatic spot through the free skate regardless of their result in the qualifying rounds.
Long before the days of live streaming on ye olde internet, the only people who saw these qualifying rounds in their entirety were those in the building. Some exceptional skaters had bad days and didn't make even make it to the short program over the years. In 1993, Maria Butyrskaya and Tonia Kwiatkowski were the first notable victims. In 1994, Laetitia Hubert and Nicole Bobek followed suit. In the years that followed, Dan Hollander, Michael Shmerkin, Kevin van der Perren, Yulia Vorobieva and Tomáš Verner were among the top international skaters who failed to make the cut at one point or another.
Midori Ito's winning performance from Qualifying Group A at the 1996 World Championships in Edmonton
While the qualifying rounds were popular with judges, they were highly unpopular with skaters. Some argued that having to perform two free skates made competitions too long and tiresome and that if the qualifying rounds were rarely televised - at least in their entirety - what was the point? Following the 2006 World Championships in Calgary, the ISU Congress voted to give them the boot, only to briefly reintroduce preliminary elimination rounds for lower ranking skaters at the 2011 and 2012 World Championships to whittle down the fields. This was axed when the system of requiring skaters to achieve a minimum scores to even attend the events was introduced. The system of requiring a certain score to even attend the World Championships was met with a similar disdain, many arguing that skaters from all ISU member federations should have the right to send one skater or team per discipline to an event called... the World Championships.
QUALIFYING/PRELIMINARY ROUND WINNERS AT THE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS
|
Year |
Men (A) |
Men (B) |
Women (A) |
Women (B) |
|
1993 |
Kurt Browning |
Elvis Stojko |
Surya Bonaly |
Lu Chen |
|
1994 |
Elvis Stojko |
Alexei Urmanov |
Yuka Sato |
Josée Chouinard |
|
1995 |
Todd Eldredge |
Michael Shmerkin |
Irina Slutskaya |
Nicole Bobek |
|
1996 |
Rudy Galindo |
Takeshi Honda |
Midori Ito |
Maria Butyrskaya |
|
1997 |
Todd Eldredge |
Alexei Urmanov |
Michelle Kwan |
Tara Lipinski |
|
1998 |
Todd Eldredge |
Alexei Yagudin |
Michelle Kwan |
Maria Butyrskaya |
|
1999 |
Alexei Yagudin |
Evgeni Plushenko |
Michelle Kwan |
Maria Butyrskaya |
|
2000 |
Alexei Yagudin |
Elvis Stojko |
Maria Butyrskaya |
Irina Slutskaya |
|
2001 |
Evgeni Plushenko |
Takeshi Honda |
Michelle Kwan |
Irina Slutskaya |
|
2002 |
Alexei Yagudin |
Timothy Goebel |
Michelle Kwan |
Irina Slutskaya |
|
2003 |
Evgeni Plushenko |
Michael Weiss |
Michelle Kwan |
Fumie Suguri |
|
2004 |
Evgeni Plushenko |
Emanuel Sandhu |
Shizuka Arakawa |
Sasha Cohen |
|
2005 |
Evgeni Plushenko |
Stéphane Lambiel |
Irina Slutskaya |
Sasha Cohen |
|
2006 |
Stéphane Lambiel |
Nobunari Oda |
Fumie Suguri |
Joannie Rochette |
|
2011* |
Takahiko Kozuka |
(not held) |
Maé Bérénice Méité |
(not held) |
|
2012* |
Song Nan |
(not held) |
Jenna McCorkell |
(not held) |
Skate Guard is a blog dedicated to preserving the rich, colourful and fascinating history of figure skating. Over ten years, the blog has featured over a thousand free articles covering all aspects of the sport's history, as well as four compelling in-depth features. To read the latest articles, follow the blog on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and YouTube. If you enjoy Skate Guard, please show your support for this archive by ordering a copy of the figure skating reference books "The Almanac of Canadian Figure Skating", "Technical Merit: A History of Figure Skating Jumps" and "A Bibliography of Figure Skating": https://skateguard1.blogspot.com/p/buy-book.html.
