Robert W. Smith is so arrogant!

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Isn't it amazing how many give Bruce lee the credit for brining MA to the west and opening the east for students.

Guess no eastern MA were taught in the west prior to his appearance nor were taught to westerners, hmmm, seem to recall quiet a few names of already renowned western CMA in the 60's.

Maybe a bit of study into the actual chinese & Hong kong movie industry might dispel some of these myths.

Or have names like Pei Pei Cheng and similar been forgotten already, some of those stars were big prior to Bruce Lee and are still big now.

Bruce Lee is who he was, he monopolized on his name and achievements of people that came before him.

Love him or hate him, but don't idolize him and assign achievements that he never did.

[dwid]

I know I'm coming into this rather late, but I'm a little irritated by the bashing the Smith Bagua book always gets on here. I would wager maybe one or two people on this forum have ever even read Smith's original Bagua book. It has been out of print for many years and is pretty expensive when you can find it on ebay or abe-books.

The current edition, by Smith and Pittman is a pale shadow of the original text. I don't know who made the decision to revise it that way or why, but you're all right. It sucks! The original book, however, the one that Smith actually wrote by himself, is actually one of the better books on Bagua that I have found.

[Buddy]

Well I've owned those books since the seventies and everything that isn't Smith or his opinions is ok. His stuff is totally useless. He knows nothing about Gao style Bagua and his demonstration in his book proves it. It's great that he introduced the West to these arts but thirty years later they have only historical value. I won't even comment on Pittman's version. At least his Xingyi book had that old picture of the guy doing bengquan.
Buddy
BTW I bought em for about ten bucks each in Boston's Chinatown.

[GeneChing]

You guys really need to put some perspective on the time period. Both Lee and Smith were revolutionary - they were the first to really put some of this stuff out there. It's all about precedence. Sure, you can nitpick faults, but could you withstand such a test? A better question is, would anyone even bother to apply such a test to you? Have you done anything noteworthy? If so, why isn't this thread about you?

[fragbot]

But I never really found much to be offended with in his books. They're not useful from a technical standpoint, but he certainly writes in an entertaining manner. Hell, some of his stories might even sound true.

I think it's revealing that the original poster breathlessly writes, "he only studied for 10 years. HOW MUCH COULD HE HAVE LEARNED?"

It sounds like he's primarily upset about the author's preference for neijia over weijia. This is kind of twisted.

[GeneChing]

I missed it too and it's my namesake. Some people just like to put down stuff, like all those people who try to disregard Bruce Lee. It gets pretty silly really.

[Buddy]

Sure, you can nitpick faults, but could you withstand such a test? A better question is, would anyone even bother to apply such a test to you? Have you done anything noteworthy? If so, why isn't this thread about you?
Gene,
For a guy with a literary bent you surely must realize that this point is irrelevent. You might ask the same question about anyone critisizing any subject.
While I am more than pleased that Smith wrote his books, he has decided (in his latest tome) that he is the judge and jury of all things he writes about. And his student declared publicly on his website (which he has had the good sense to remove) that he was THE lineage holder in the US with regards to Gao style Baguazhang. Certainly Marcus Brinkman and Tim Cartmell might take issue with that ridiculous statement. Further he described our teacher, Luo Dexiu, as having a mish-mash of techniques and not the complete system. This thread isn't about me or anyone else who posted because it's about someone else. Isn't that obvious?
Buddy

[BAI HE]

You sir I an audacious and rude cur.
You come to this nice mans forum and pull up his dress?

You scoundrel borne of urine!

[brassmonkey]

"And his student declared publicly on his website (which he has had the good sense to remove) that he was THE lineage holder in the US with regards to Gao style Baguazhang. Certainly Marcus Brinkman and Tim Cartmell might take issue with that ridiculous statement. Further he described our teacher, Luo Dexiu, as having a mish-mash of techniques and not the complete system. "

From 1 of his books I believe he states 1 of the Hong brothers stated he was an Lineage heir to Gao style. If you look a the US you have a half dozen to a dozen legimate claims of Chen style lineage holders, doesnt mean 1 is right and the rest is wrong.

[PHILBERT]

*cough*wingchun*cough*

[GeneChing]

buddy - OK, fair enough. My last comment should have been followed by one of those sarcastic smilies like . I havent' read Smith's latest book, so I wouldn't be a fair judge, nor have I read his website, or even keep tabs on such things. Given my position, feuds drop in my lap all the time, so I try to avoid it whenever I can. I was speaking solely based on his previous contributions, which I think are worthy as precedent.

bai he - I'm not sure who you're talking about. Who's wearing a dress here?

brass monkey - Lineage heirs are such a mess, always. philbert has it right.

philbert - You have it right.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings...

If we put the effort into analyzing ourselves that we put into analyzing others.. i think we would be better-off..

From my perspective, i honor the contributions made by my predecessors, without which we wouldn't be having these conversations.. whether i agree with ALL of their perspectives is merely a personal issue, the only test that matters is does their contribution enhance my own experience.. personally, i don't care if they learned their stuff from the back of a Rice Krispy box, if it works to my advantage, i have benefitted.. Too much worry about "image", too little care about results ends up in a discussion like this one..

One of my students trained with Robert Smith in the early to mid seventies and says that he was brutally honest but an equally effective teacher that maintained high standards.. sounds reasonable to me.

Listening to people rant about a legend (regardless of qualification) that they have never met or crossed hands with is simply comical.. it is no more than the signature of their own spirit of contradiction.. it is unlikely that CMA would enjoy its popularity without BL's contributions.. he did raise the bar of personal performance and philosophical insight.. Was he the best? unlikely! but, he accomplished more things than most of us can ever hope for.. My mentor says the "best" wouldn't trifle themselves with such nonsense as public displays, you never know how good they are until its too late.. and even then, they disappear into anonymity..

Begrudging someone's popularity or accomplishments is not a pleasant spectacle.. rather, support your own positive contribution to the Arts, lest we appear to be Politicians... I will support that in which i believe, my silence on matters i disfavor is sufficient for me..

Be well..

[jun_erh]

mr tripps got a legitamate bone of contention

[Buddy]

Yeah, but I'm seeing a chiropractor about it.
Buddy

[jun_erh]

another Neil Hamburger seems t be alot of that going on around here