2011–12 Cyclo-cross Superprestige
The 2011–2012 Cyclo-cross Superprestige events and season-long competition took place between 9 October 2011 and 11 February 2012. Sven Nys was the defending champion and prolonged his title to win his 11th Superprestige.
| Details | |
|---|---|
| Dates | 9 October 2011 – 11 February 2012 |
| Location | Belgium and Netherlands |
| Rounds | 8 |
| Champions | |
| Male individual champion | .svg.png){kind=small} |
Results
| Date | Venue | Winner | Second | Third | Classification Leader |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 October | | | | | |
| 30 October | | | | | |
| 13 November | |  | | | |
| 20 November | | | | | |
| 27 November |  | | | | |
| 23 December | | | | | |
| 5 February | | | | | |
| 11 February | | | | | |
Standings
In each race, the top 15 riders gain points, going from 15 points for the winner decreasing by one point per position to 1 point for the rider finishing in 15th position. In case of ties in the total score of two or more riders, the result of the last race counts as decider. If this is not decisive because two or more riders scored no points, the penultimate race counts, and so on until there is a difference.
| Pos | Name | Tot | RUD | ZON | H-Z | A-G | GIE | DIE | HGS | MID |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 105 | 12 | 14 | 13 | 11 | 15 | 13 | 13 | 14 |
| 2 | | 99 | 3 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 12 |
| 3 | | 92 | 10 | 12 | 15 | 13 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 15 |
| 4 | | 78 | 9 | 9 | 7 | 14 | 11 | 0 | 15 | 13 |
| 5 | | 74 | 13 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 12 | 9 | 10 | 10 |
| 6 | | 73 | 14 | 8 | 10 | 12 | 9 | 12 | 3 | 5 |
| 7 | | 64 | 15 | 15 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 7 |
| 8 | | 63 | 0 | 7 | 11 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 11 | 11 |
| 9 | | 50 | 11 | 11 | 9 | 9 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| 10 | | 41 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 | 8 |
| 11 | | 37 | 8 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 12 | 9 |
| 12 | | 34 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 5 | 13 | 5 | 0 | 4 |
| 13 | | 19 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| 14 | | 15 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| 15 |  | 15 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 1 | 0 |
| 16 | | 13 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 |
| 17 |  | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 |  | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 0 |
| 19 | | 11 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | | 10 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | | 9 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 |  | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 |
| 23 | | 7 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 25 | | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 |
| 26 | | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Pos | Name | Tot | RUD | ZON | H-Z | A-G | GIE | DIE | HGS | MID |
gollark: Maybe the design was bad or maybe people messed up the execution. But a good design factors in some degree of problems in the execution side.
gollark: The existence of working ways to modify them as needed isn't guaranteed.
gollark: Yes. It's still a bad fire extinguisher regardless of how good the designers thought/claimed they were being.
gollark: Systems have no intentions. People in them might, and the designers probably did, and the designers also likely claimed some intention, and people also probably ascribe some to them. But that doesn't mean that the system itself "wants" to do any of those.
gollark: I think you could reasonably argue that it's better to respect institutions than ignore them because it's better for social cohesion/stability, but I don't agree that you should respect them because they're meant to be fair and because you can always get them to fix problems you experience if this isn't actually true.
External links
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.