First, hippies and intellectuals are not the same. The new age issue is completely a different questions. Are you confusing commercialization with intellectualization?

My speculation is that the Royal classes have always toyed with martial arts. They dabble. Historically the martial arts has been, like it was said before the military and in the 19th and early 20 century illiterate, bodyguards and the countryside people. Hardly well accepted in the Royal classes.

Intellectuals like Sun Lu Tang made it more agreeable for the upper class by putting into the contemporary philosophy of their world view.

However, what does intellectualization mean? Translating oral poetry into written philosophy? Many of the so-called intellectuals were also practitioners and decent (not necessarily the best, but many trained).

There really isn't a whole lot of written material from the 19th century given the practice of the arts at that time. The taiji and bagua books on the market are hardly intellectual writing: they are primary commercial and instructional in nature.

Some of the best material came from Generals of the 17th century and I would hardly call that intellectualization.

Historical writers are far and few between. If you look at the academics writing on Chna's history, in the mainstream peer reviewed journals, martial arts is never addressed (go to the Border's China historical section, check out the indices and tell me how many citations you find regarding martial arts)

I think the most damage, if that is what martial arts is, came from the fiction writers who made the IMA larger than life and the Western romantic fascination with China (which goes back to the times of Marco Polo).

Intellectuaization does not always mean one who does not practice or does not have power.