Triple Crown 2011: Why the Triple Crown Shouldn't Change

As we leave the 2011 Triple Crown Trail behind us, renewed vigor has joined the Triple Crown let down racing experiences every year.

Horse racing’s most coveted trophy hasn’t been lifted above a winner’s head since Affirmed had to battle Affirmed to the wire 33 years ago, showing just how hard the trophy is to win. But the 33 years of waiting has some people thinking the Triple Crown needs to change or even disappear.

I say it needs to stay the same.

For those readers that don’t understand how hard the Triple Crown is to win, let me put it into a little perspective for you.

Imagine asking a nine-year-old child to run three marathons within a five-week period when they have never gone the distance of two of the marathons.

But you aren’t only asking the child to run these three races. You are asking them to win these races when they aren’t mentally or physically mature and can do extremely unexpected things, even in the best of times.

You are also asking them to run it in a tight back with up to 20 other kids (the size of the Kentucky Derby field) that will be jostling for position while running at a high speed. They will also be running into a homestretch with up to 100,000 people (if not more) cheering, something none of these runners have ever experienced before.

Now do you understand how hard it is to win this series of races?

But back to the original point. Why should the Triple Crown stay around when no one has won it since the late 1970s?

First, this is the ultimate test of champions.  

Sorry to fans of other sports, but the Triple Crown is the hardest trophy to win, period.

The Triple Crown asks the most out of these animals (and their connections) while throwing conditions at them they have never experienced before. If a horse can handle all of that while also winning, they deserve the crown; but if they can’t, then the racing gods look for their next champion.

Second, the Crown has had dry spells before. Before Secretariat won it in 1973, no one had won it since 1948. There was also a gap between the first Triple Crown winner (Sir Barton) in 1919 and Gallant Fox in 1930.

A winner is the champion of champions of their era (and of American horse racing history), more so than yearly Eclipse winners or any other winner of awards or races in American racing.

Third, it sorts the men from the boys. Part of the argument for getting rid of the Triple Crown, or making it easier is that it is too hard.

Horses have to run in the Kentucky Derby after a hard campaign just to make the race, then wheel around two weeks later to win the Preakness. But before their crowning is complete, they have to turn around and run in the longest race of them all, the Belmont Stakes.

Yes, it’s hard on horses, and they aren’t bred like they were 30 years ago and all that jazz about why horses aren’t winning the Triple Crown.

But if it was easy (including race spacing), everyone would win it. Winning the three races that make up the Triple Crown is an accomplishment that only great horses can do. Many good horses have tried…and failed.

Just because the Triple Crown is hard and the racing world hasn’t seen a winner in 33 years does not mean it should be changed to make it easier. It also shouldn’t disappear so no one ever has a chance to win it ever again.

The trial to win the Triple Crown is part of the fun of three-year-old horse racing, and it will take a special horse to wear the Crown that horses such as Secretariat and Citation have worn. Until that special horse comes along, racing fans should sit back and enjoy watching the challenge that is the Triple Crown.

The wait will make it so much sweeter when the next champion is crowned after five weeks of excitement and tears.