I think the all around condemnation of the Smith Machine by so many of the up-to-date trainers on the web is just a bit overwrought. Can we re-examine this much maligned beast? #1 argument against the Smith Machine-It does not require  your muscles to stabilize the load. Well this is true, just as it is for all weight lifting machines, some of which are considered to have some value. As long as the lifter is aware of this, so what? #2 argument against the Smith Machine-It moves the weight in a vertical path putting unnatural forces on the lifters joints. After all, the barbell does not follow a straight line when you do a squat.This contention bugs me. It assumes that the body follows a curved path upwards in a squat in favor of the joints being used. I get stuck on this for 2 reasons: 1.   I don't think that the curve upwards in a squat has as much to do with the set of joints in use as it does with a shifting center of gravity. The BB is on a curving path because the center of gravity is on a curving path. 2. In a practice where a reference is cited for just about every contention made I don't see any reference to any studies on Smith Machines. Do people get injured in Smith Machines? Of course! They also get injured in power racks and in free standing exercises. So really, is the universal condemnation warranted?
(By the way, I work out in a little corporate gym full of Cybex machines, no barbells at all, plenty of dumbbells and a Smith Machine. I use the Smith in 3 exercises out of 20+ that I do in a 4 workout rotation.Mostly I don't use the Cybex machines.)And I also have one unrelated question. Are you coming over to Columbus for the Arnold Fitness Expo?