(CHICAGO, IL – May 31, 2010) One of the tragedies of progress is the passing of a way of life that accommodated etiquette and subtlety and elegance for an existence that is greedy and obvious and loud. Perspective has become a prism that no longer allows an individual to value the little things, even when the little things are, in fact, big things. Today, perfectly wonderful experiences that Americans used to anticipate and enjoy become overlooked because one of them has been deemed the ultimate, and thus, the only one that is worth engaging.

So it comes as no surprise that talk about the Triple Crown began the moment Super Saver won the Kentucky Derby. After all, it would seem an odd dynamic if the Preakness Stakes served as a prize worthy unto itself, especially when something else represents a larger notoriety. In the last two weeks, everyone, it seems, has focused on how sad the Belmont Stakes will be without anything but its own trophy, purse money and glory at stake. In almost 70 of the 142 years before the past fortnight, it didn’t seem a problem.

The Belmont Stakes was contested 50 times prior to its initial Triple Crown champion. There were four Triple Crown winners in the books – Sir Barton in 1919, Gallant Fox in 1930, Omaha in 1935 and War Admiral in 1937 – before turf writers, en masse, promoted the concept. Both Bryan Field of the New York Times, whose newspaper gave birth to the concept in 1923 and Charles Hatton of the Daily Racing Form, who was credited incorrectly for its inception after Gallant Fox won seven years later, were unable to recruit followers for the better part of a decade after the idea entered the public realm. Given the effect it has made, commerce might have been better served had they left things alone.

In any case, most competitions that represent the ultimate in any sport grew into their description over the last several decades. The thirst to make money, of course, is what’s led to separating these events out from the others. All Americans have been taught to want everything more sensational and less abstract in the way it is consumed. In Chicago, there are fans who would gladly give up the simple pleasures of day games and the unique Wrigley Field experience if playing at night and in more modern surroundings would enable the team to capture a World Series. Followers of Notre Dame Football still believe that winning the National Championship is the sole reason for playing.

The playoff system has kept interest kindling in baseball, basketball, hockey and football. Placing teams on the brink of elimination leading up to a championship contest has rewarded the fans of these sports with meaningful games that, in fact, supersede the requisite season. But horse racing has nothing to offer its fans when there’s the loss of a Triple Crown possibility, unless you consider a way-open competition intriguing. Thus, the sport sits in Purgatory, with only one race in the spring and one in the fall that are individually consequential – not a good place to be when the public isn’t turned on by process.

“This is an all-or-nothing society. People have difficulty calibrating success,” said Dr. Richard Lustberg, who specializing in sports psychology. “There’s a tendency to not look at what you’ve accomplished, but to feel bad about failing to reach your dream goal,” the creator of psychologyofsports.com said, emphasizing how consequence determines value. Lustberg’s remarks revealed an insecure market, one that placed value exclusively in achievements that are clearly defined and that signify finality.

“Horse racing needs mandatory competitions and a ratings system,” he advised to boost the popularity of races that aren’t Triple Crown events or Breeders’ Cup World Thoroughbred Championships. “People are used to seeing things this way,” he said. “You have to get the horses, trainers, owners and racetracks aligned. They need to create match-ups, like boxing does to draw you in, and ratings like NASCAR, where people can understand what’s at stake. I am looking forward to seeing Rachel Alexandra race against Zenyatta,” said Lustberg, a man who watches very few horse races these days but remembers Affirmed, Stevie Cauthen and Laz Barrera as if Alydar’s nemesis raced a week ago.

Meanwhile, observers are placing the “em-PHA-sis” on the wrong “syl-LA -ble.” Here on HorseRaceInsider.com, executive editor John Pricci has concocted his own Triple Crown as an improvement on the existing one. D. Wayne Lukas has his version; perhaps a thousand are out there. In contrast, Amanda Duckworth for ESPN.com wrote that “changing the Triple Crown is the equivalent of looking in the mirror, not liking what you see and blaming the mirror.” The debate rages.

Regardless, whenever only eleven of thousands of competitors are able to achieve a challenge, any challenge, in eleven dozen years, there is no reason to promote the possibility of the challenge’s least probable outcome. The University of Kentucky wins National Collegiate Basketball Championships with more frequency than a horse wins the Triple Crown. Horse racing can’t enlarge its fan base by minimizing the number of its attractions. There are probably two dozen Grade 1 races that were really special occasions on the calendar before the Breeders’ Cup came along, and they require resuscitation.

NYRA’s marketing people deserve credit for positioning the Belmont Stakes as New York’s greatest race. Yet to accomplish the job completely, they must accept that having the Triple Crown on the line is an exception – a bonanza of a marketing tool. The best marketers don’t react to the market, they make the market.

Most people who watch horse racing, even those of advanced age, will see another Triple Crown winner eventually. That’s assured. But if missing the pure enjoyment of the individual races that comprise the hallowed series is the price one pays while waiting for this dream to come true, it’s not worth it.

You're invited to join Vic Zast at Facebook.com/viczast and Twitter.com/viczast for daily horse racing dialogue.