Iron History

[Previous entry: "4/24/2010: Letter from Charles A. Smith to Joe Roark August 19, 1988"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "5/7/2010: Part 2 of the September 15, 1988 letter from Charles A. Smith to Joe Roark"]

04/29/2010 Entry: "4/30/10: Letter from Charles A. Smith to Joe Roark Sep 15, 2010"

CAS (for Apr 30) Letter from Charles A. Smith to Joe Roark Sep 15, 2010
This is Part 1; part 2 next week.

Dear Joe,
Thanks for your letter of the 12th, which made it here yesterday. My news first.

MUSCULAR DEVELOPMENT, the relic of S&H has finally been sold to some group in Long Island. Tis said they will concentrate fiercely on supplements, and are also giving the York men five years free advertising in the new publication, whatever it will be called. Further than this my spy says naught. When the consummation of the deal will take place is also not known, but I imagine it will be soon. Say ta ta to York.

My smoked salmon friend wrote a week ago or so. As usual--as he does in ALL his letters- he says he hasn't forgotten the fish. This time the excuse is that he just hasn't gone to his 'friend' who smokes it. And, it just so happens, he is bringing out a new book AND was reading through ALL my old articles when he SUDDENLY remembered he owed me a letter-- he hant (sic) written since February.

Then he rhapsodises on how lush his new book will be and would I PLEASE contribute a chapter about training after 40 and what my experiences were and what advice I have to offer and OF COURSE he will be sure to give me credit.

I felt like writing back and telling him to get stuffed, but restrained my anger at this sort of damned shit arsed brain picking, and said that I would, in the future, sue anyone who I found taking my old material and shoving it forth as their own. This wasn't exactly subtle and I did it after telling him my experiences with the British Mag and their using my shoulder belt article under someone else's name. It may have been a non sequitur, as to what he had requested of me, but I am the sort of bloke who uses a sledge hammer rather than the rapier. I hope he gets the point. I also said in a rather heavy way, that he had, of his own volition, promised me smoked salmon every letter he has written, that it was still as scarce around my house as duck fangs and would he please defecate or arise from the john. This is all so laughable to me, and I couldn't resist having a stab at him.

I do intensely dislike this sort of brain picking, especially so when one is getting paid for writing a book, or else reaping returns from it, then using other people' experiences and know how to shove it over, and up your own ego. But enough.

For the life of me I can't think of what Glossbrenner is trying to say when he opines that NO ONE WILL LIFT 600. They will lift 272.5. Now this is nit picking on his part. To echo the old adage 'No matter what way you slice it, it is STILL baloney, "272.5 ISN'T 600 but 599.5 pounds. And, if this weight was lifted in India they would say it was in SERS and if in China it would be in catties or TICALS. So call it kilos or pounds, it is still 600 or 272.5. And a lifter within the range of 600 would not lift it BY CHANCE. He would know way before hand how much weight he would attempt, and also know if he had any chance of making it. AND no record is broken by chance. So it matters not if a weight is in kilos or the once popular avoirdupois, it will still be what is on the bar- 600 or 272.5. After what he did to my article, and from what I have heard about him from other people WAY UP there in lifting echelons, the man is a prise prick. Or am I insulting pricks.

Nice to know the sub list is increasing. May it continue that way. [Roark note: this was in ref to my newsletter]

I fear you should drop the date back for the Inch material. I had a call from Joe Assirati the other day to tell me not to expect any more mail from him -- indefinitely-- since there was a postal strike in the UK. This was confirmed later when several letters I had written to blokes in England, were returned, marked 'service suspended'. Joe had planned to dig around and find out more stuff for me and send it along. I too had written letters to others who were at one time in the thirties, prominent in UK lifting. But I can't, until I don't know when. As I said, letters returned.

Re that 'History of Power Lifting' you are writing:

When the British Lifting Association, the BAWLA--British Amateur Weightlifting Association was formed in the VERY early part of this century, they had only TWO sets of lifts for competition purposes and this situation pertained right up to after the War--Two that is. These two sets were the Olympic Set and the Continental Set, this latter sometimes being called THE STRENGTH SET. THE POWER LIFTING SET didn't come in until way after WW2.

So be careful about talking on power lifts BEFORE WW2. There wasn't any power lifting (as we now know it,) until way way back when the first Power Lifting Championships were held in this country and won by the Reverend.

You MUST get hold of Bill Pullum's book. WEIGHTLIFTING MADE EASY AND INTERESTING. This of course, shows you how to do all the 42 lifts in the Brits lexicon of lifting, used for record breaking purposes, and an all round lifting club still is in being in the UK, run by Tony Cook, and using all the old 42 lifts.

One of these 42, the British used 6 to comprise the two competition sets. One was the Two Hands clean and MILITARY PRESS. The Two Hands Snatch and the Teo Hands Clean and Jerk.

The next competition set, and sometimes called the POWER SET was the Two Hands Clean and Push, The Two Hands Snatch and the Two Hands Continental and Jerk. NOT the TWO HANDS Continental CLEAN and Jerk, but the TWO HANDS CONTINENTAL AND JERK. This was lifting the bar to a belt around the waist, then from the belt into the shoulders.

In the Two Hands Clean and Push, you could bend forward, bend back, all you wanted. But there could be NO HEAVE from the shoulders and the legs could not be bent at the knees, but had to be kept lacked straight throughout the lift. AND ridged judging too. Why they called it the Strength Set at this time- and be it briefly- was more weight could be lifted and there was less 'science' involved-- or so they reasoned, and some blokes would give them an argument.