Chapter 2: "The Ad" and the Advent of the Cadles:1960
Chapter 2: "The Ad" and the Advent of the Cadles:1960
Maletz Departs
Embedded Files
Washington Star, March 18, 1960
In late winter of 1960 Fred Maletz informed the crew that he’d have to resign as their coach due to his assignment to new a State Department job in Iran. For guys who had formed a tight team of underclassmen this news came as a real blow. They were unwilling to allow their fledgling organization disband two years before their graduation just as they felt on the verge of real competitive success. Something had to be done to find a new coach to continue to build on the foundation they had built over these two seasons. In an article under the headline “Hoyas Seek Crew Coach” Maletz is quoted as saying:
And so the guys placed a want-ad in the Sports section of the Washington Post that read in part:
Wanted: One Crew Coach
Must be willing to get up at 5:30 am and coach
Georgetown’s crew with borrowed equipment and without pay.
[1. This version of the famous but long-lost “Ad” comes from an article reprinted from the HOYA in the Spring of 1961. The by line is Michael Raoul-Duval.]
Although this was hardly an “offer too good to refuse,” it did not go unnoticed and surprisingly, there were multiple respondents; different reports have the numbers varying between six and fifteen.[2. The contemporary report in the HOYA (3/31/60) gives the lower number; in the Raoul-Duval article a year later the higher number is given ]
We must now shift scenes and imagine a breakfast table at a home in Arlington sometime in March of that year. A young wife, the mother of a beautiful little girl, is perusing the morning paper when she spots an ad that she thinks might interest her husband.[3 It was Inge Cadle who first read the ad and brought it to Don’s attention. Personal conversation, 10/18/12.] She passes him the page, and he reads: “Wanted: One crew coach. . .” The mom is a native of Germany married not quite four years to a promising young man of 31 with an impressive resume, currently working as an examiner in the federal Bureau of the Budget. She knows the ad will pique his interest because he’s done some rowing during his college years, and even coached for a while in grad school. He reads the ad and decides to follow up.
The young family in this scene is Don and Inge Cadle, and their little girl, Caron. They probably didn’t realize it that morning but their family was about to expand to include the boys of the Georgetown Crew. [4. In writing this history we must pay tribute to Inge Cadle who played a central part in the success of the GU crew. Not only did she feed them and launder their uniforms, she was also the financial patroness who underwrote her husband’s expenditures for boats, oars, equipment, etc. The Cadles were truly a “power couple” long before that phrase became common usage.]
Don Duane Cadle was born June 25, 1929 in Omaha [5 Don spent his early childhood in Alabama, but the family later moved to Denver, so it is probably more accurate to say Don came from Denver, Colorado. ], attended Wentworth Military Academy in Lexington, Missouri, and then entered Yale in 1946, where he rowed all four years, and stroked the JV to an undefeated season, and stroked the varsity as a senior [6. Frank Barrett, 7/25/12]. In 1950 he graduated from Yale with a degree in history and then went to Oxford University on a Rhodes scholarship, where he rowed for Balliol College. At Balliol, Don was elected Captain of Boats, [7. Don was the first non-Englishman to be elected Captain of Boats at Balliol. Frank Barrett, 8/10/12] and rowed six [8. Balliol College Boat Club website.] in the crew that went to the “Head of the River” in the series of “bump races” that determines the championship of all the Oxford college rowing clubs. These were the credentials that Don brought to his interview for the position. [9. According to the 1961 article by Raoul-Duval, “Out of fifteen applicants Mr. Maletz chose Don Cadle as Varsity coach and Thor Hansen for the Freshmen.” If this can be credited, it would explain why none of the officers of that year (Mike O’Brien, Frank Murray, Chuck Wolfretz, and Al DiFiore) recall being involved in the process. One wag ventured an alternative theory: “Knowing Don, he probably hired himself.”]
Hoya announces new coaches,
Katal (sic) and Hansen (sic)
Washington Star, March 18, 1960
Vice-Adm Carl Thor Hanson
(1928-2008)--post GU photo
Incredibly, no one recalls any details of that interview so we can only imagine what it must have been like, but given Don’s credentials the decision could not have required much deliberation, and so by March 31st the HOYA reported that the Crew had chosen two new coaches, Don Cadle and Thor Hanson.[10. Thor Hansen (5/7/28 – 1/12/08) rose to the rank of Vice Admiral, and retired from the US Navy in 1982. ]
Lt. Commander Carl Thor Hanson, USN, was a tall rangy Texan who rowed as a Midshipman at the Naval Academy and who had become friends with Don during their several competitive meetings when Yale raced against Navy in the late forties. When they both arrived at Oxford as Rhodes scholars, their friendship deepened despite their continued rivalry on the river: Thor rowed for New College while Don rowed for Balliol. After graduating from Oxford they remained in contact, and fortunately Thor was also living in the Washington area while working in the Pentagon for the Chief of Naval Operations.[11. Thor Hansen (5/7/28 – 1/12/08) rose to the rank of Vice Admiral, and retired from the US Navy in 1982. ]
When Don brought Thor along to coach the freshmen, the fortunes of the Georgetown Crew suddenly took a momentous turn. Prior to Cadle, rowing at Georgetown had been in Frank Barrett’s word, “a lark,” nothing to be taken very seriously, just something that was fun and not much more than “messing about in boats.” That casual approach to rowing was about to change.
The advent of Don Cadle and Thor Hanson proved to be both a quantum step forward in terms of the technical aspects of rowing but also the introduction of a new paradigm for crew at Georgetown. Both men came imbued with the best traditions of the sport, and recognized their opportunity to implant those traditions at Georgetown. Although they were both quintessentially American oarsmen (Don grew up in Alabama and Colorado[12. Don’s sobriquet at Yale was either “the Denver Darling” according to Caron Cadle, (12/14/12 or “The Denver Dandy” according to Frank Barrett, (7/12/12). Whether a darling or a dandy, Don was from Denver. ], and Thor was a Texan from Amarillo) and alumni of great American programs (Yale & Navy) they had spent the last years of their competitive careers in England absorbing the British traditions of rowing as a club sport.
1960 Varsity Crew after morning practice, W & Lee oars
L to R: Tim Toomey, Bill Prest, Frank Barrett, Francis Kane, Cadle, Al DiFiore ,Vito Zambelli, Don Whamond, Mike Lang, Frank Murray
On American campuses, “club sports” are often step-children, and usually aspire to achieve “varsity” recognition and the monetary support that comes with it; a club’s “autonomy” vis a vis the university is hardly ever an issue. But at Oxford and Cambridge, each college had its own rowing club which usually maintained its own boat house. The club members (students and active alumni) ran their own affairs quite independently of their respective universities. Members paid dues, elected their officers and captains, and chose their own coaches who as “amateur oarsmen,” [13. It must be noted that for a sport that was brand new to the campus and that had no alumni support, the Crew received very good and encouraging publicity during these years. Such coverage and the student-body support it engendered played a significant role in finally convincing the administration that the Crew was worthy of recognition.] were volunteers serving without pay, purely for the love for the sport and the honor of competing against their gentlemanly peers in a major sport that enjoyed a considerable national following. In terms of the “OxBridge [14. “OxBridge” will be used as a contraction for Oxford and Cambridge, England’s foremost universities and rowing powers. ] paradigm,” the college rowing club was virtually autonomous, in contrast with the American system in which the university sponsors (and controls) a certain number of “varsity” [15. Etymologically, the term “varsity” itself is a colloquial abbreviation for the word “university.” ] sports under the aegis of its athletic department. It was this OxBridge paradigm [16. The most pertinent summation of this paradigm is the GURA Constitution. See Appendix for the full text, circa 1964. ] and its traditions that Don Cadle brought with him that Spring. Under Don and Thor, rowing at Georgetown was about to get serious.
The Spring Races, 1960
Washington Post
May 1, 1960
Spring came late to the Potomac that year as unusually cold weather delayed the early workouts on the ice-bound river. But despite the delay and the shadow cast by Maletz’ imminent departure, the crew – now boasting three full eights – was looking forward to earning recognition from the University as a varsity sport. This would be their third season, and already they had won the respect and admiration of the student body for their gutsy tenacity and work ethic. Anybody who gets up before dawn to row on the near frozen Potomac commands respect, and articles in the HOYA chronicle their growing support on campus. Everybody loves an underdog, especially one so fiercely dedicated to the fight.
The first race was on the Schuylkill, April 30rd against a more experienced and highly regarded St. Joe’s crew [17. St. Joe’s would eventually place second to Brown in the Dad Vail that year.]. Although the Hoyas managed to take a slight lead in the first quarter, St. Joe’s took command out of Strawberry Mansion Bridge to win by 13 seconds (7:17 to 7:30). The loss was mitigated by the fact that they did lead both George Washington and Fordham across the finish line. Rowing varsity that Saturday were Tim Toomey, Bob O’Brien, Frank Barrett, Bill Prest, Vito Zambelli, Randy Maloney, Mike O’Brien, and stroke Frank Murray; Al DiFiore coxed. [18. Washington Post 5/1/60.]
The Freshman race that day provided some unexpected excitement when the GU yearlings managed to ram the Drexel boat [19. The HOYA, 5/5/60] before recovering their poise and coming in second to Fordham’s frosh by only a third of a length, with Drexel in third place. Henry Walker, John Walsh, Carl Haeger, Ken MacKensie, John McGuire, Dave Casey, Chris Risser, and stroke Jim Mietus rowed, while cox Paul Ritter steered the eight.
There must have been one home race that Spring [20. By deduction it must have been 5/7/60. No accounts of this race have been found.] that gave rise to the legend of “The CARE Package.” Borrowing old boats that were in poor repair, the guys often had to contend with leaky hulls and water sloshing back and forth at every catch. This was not good. But let Frank tell the story:
Don decided that we would be more competitive with fewer leaks. He purchased rolls of tape and sealed the “checks.” Many different colors of tape were used, and when finished someone said it looked like a “Care Package.” We were ready to go. The problem was that the tape loosened as we rowed and when we finished (we lost) there were multi-colored streamers trailing like sea-weed. Care packages may help the hungry and homeless but do not make for fast boats.
Washington Post
May 1, 1960
Two weeks later Georgetown’s varsity and freshmen [21 Georgetown did not enter the Junior Varsity race at the 1960 Dad Vail.] returned to the Schuykill to row in their first Dad Vail Regatta to decide the “small college championship.” For the over-night stay, May 13th and 14th the guys enjoyed the hospitality of the Murray & Zambelli homes. The races were not as successful as they had hoped, since the varsity failed to qualify for the six-boat final. The freshmen did make their final but came in fifth ahead of Purdue; the victorious Brown frosh showed their disdain for their competition by rowing through the finish line and, without even a pause, continued back to Boat House Row. [22. Vito Zambelli contributed this detail in a phone conversation 9/30/12. In those years the awards ceremonies were held on Boat House Row, and not, as in later years, on the dock by the grandstand.] Overall, the varsity placed 9th in the field of 18, while the freshmen placed 5th out of nine.
Although the Varsity had yet to win a regular race in its first three years, the members were undaunted and their spirit undiminished. Despite the hardships and difficulties of the founding, they had grown into a cohesive fraternity comprising more than 45 enthusiastic stalwarts. They had “paid their dues,” literally and figuratively. To raise money to help defray their expenses, they had pounded the neighborhood pavements of Georgetown selling raffle tickets and soliciting support from local businesses. They had rowed in the Dad Vail and felt its excitement. Across the campus there was growing respect among the student body and support for Varsity recognition from the University. There was a new municipal boathouse under construction and awaiting occupancy in the Fall, and most importantly in Don Cadle they had a new coach who seemed capable of working magic. Led by the founding juniors who’d struggled for three long winless years, the crew felt ready to break out and win boat races. As fans of the old Brooklyn Dodgers used to say, “Wait ‘til next year!”
Postscript: The Crew and the University
In our history there is no topic more fraught with misunderstanding than the issue of the Crew’s relationship with the University, a misunderstanding grounded on certain facts but which developed into a virtually paranoid mythology during that first decade. As we have mentioned in Chapter One, the Crew began as a student response to Fred Maletz’s invitation and was from the beginning a student-run organization, but its need for funds was a constant concern that at times led to strained relations with the administration. It was a fairly simple development: need begat hope for assistance, and disappointed hope lead to resentment, alienation, and suspicion. Let’s review the record objectively from the vantage of history.
It is unclear exactly how or when the crew first approached the administration about funding, but the same Washington Post article that announced “Hoyas Seek Crew Coach” (March ’60) concludes with this paragraph:
“Father Bunn, president of Georgetown, informed Maletz two years ago that if he could interest the students in rowing for five consecutive years the University would adopt the sport on an official basis.”
That promise must have been made in 1958 and predicted “adoption” in 1963. Yet the history of the issue is more complex (and inconsistent) than those terms would suggest.
April 16, 1959, a HOYA headline reported “SC Donates $125 For Crew Team,” and includes an account of the split between the Student Council and the “Administration” over the Council’s unanimous vote to “donate funds in order to reward the team for its spirit and to prevent any financial hardships to the members.” Fr. John Jacklin, SJ reportedly “told the coach of the team [Maletz] that the administration would be unwilling to give financial assistance to the crew now or in the future.” Assuming this report is accurate, it would be a reneging on Fr. Bunn’s pledge. There followed a rather unfortunate sub-headline that resonated long afterward: “No Place for Crew”
“Fr. Joseph Cohalen, SJ spoke immediately after the presentation of the bill, (authorizing the donation) expressing the hope that the Council would not vote in the money for the purpose of pressuring the school authorities into recognizing crew as a minor sport. ‘We are in a bind,’ he said. ‘The principal factor is to attract and keep competent teachers. To continue to do this, salary levels must rise. . . I’m a great crew fan, but we just can’t afford it. There’s no place for crew in the future at Georgetown.”
That same day in the COURIER appeared an article under the headline, “ROWING ASSOCIATION CARRIES ON DESPITE FINANCIAL HANDICAPS.” The article lauded the crew’s spirit and detailed its accomplishments over the first two seasons.
Later that month and probably in reaction to Frs. Jacklin & Cohalen’s remarks, a sympathetic article (Wash Post ?) by Henry Fankhauser reported under the headline “GEORGETOWN CREW STRICTLY ON ITS OWN” that: “The university is unable to support it, so the boys each have chipped in $5 dues to pay race entries, equipment breakage and $250 for the use of Potomac Boat Club. The boys plan several raffles to raise more money. Outside contributions will be greatly appreciated.”
The next year Ed Weathersbee, reporting on Maletz’ pending departure, wrote:
“The fact that Georgetown University does not offer financial support to the crew team and that coach Maletz volunteered his assistance will definitely handicap the crew’s future when their coach leaves. . .“The primary objective of this year’s team is to gain recognition. . . (A successful season of racing) should show Georgetown University that its crew team is worthy of the financial support that is given to other athletes.” THE HOYA, 3/10/60
The tenor of these early articles is clearly sympathetic to the crew’s financial plight, and implicitly critical of the university’s lack of support. THE HOYA (3/31/60:
“The team members have already great enthusiasm over their new coaches (Cadle & Hansen) and all feel that they are more than qualified to handle the tasks they have so unselfishly undertaken.”
Again in THE HOYA of April 4, ’60, Jack Scott wrote,
“The hardworking Georgetown varsity crew proved themselves again worthy of University recognition by placing second behind St. Joseph’s in the first college regatta of the year.”
As reported, the student body was behind the crew; but the university? Not so much; at least not yet. But with this kind of publicity, the pressure on the “administration” to provide at least some token support was building. [23. It must be noted that for a sport that was brand new to the campus and that had no alumni support, the Crew received very good and encouraging publicity during these years. Such coverage and the student-body support it engendered played a significant role in finally convincing the administration that the Crew was worthy of recognition. ]
Then on January 19, 1961, in a banner headline in THE HOYA came the announcement:
Crew Gains Recognition
Budget Granted; Crew Shell To Be Donated By Senior Class
Reverend Robert L. Hoggson, SJ, Chairman of the Athletic Council, announced that the Crew team has been given a yearly budget of $1000 and its members can now become eligible for varsity letters and freshman numerals. This action of the Council represents three and a half years of work by the team members who kept the sport alive and active during these years of probation relying primarily on a highly enthusiastic spirit built on their love of the sport. This guiding spirit – the “Spirit of ‘61” – originated with our present Senior Class.[24. What was not mentioned in this article was the fact that in addition to the thousand dollar allowance, the University also paid an unknown amount to cover the rent for the Crew’s space in the new Thompson Boathouse. (Frank Barrett, 9/16/13)]
In a companion piece, the front-page headline read:
Senior Gift To Provide Crew With Shell, Oars
The Class of 1961’s “Senior Gift Committee”, under the direction of Paul Kenney, has announced plans to buy the just recognized Georgetown crew team a much needed shell and thirty oars for approximately $2900. The name of this first shell will appropriately be “The Spirit of ’61.”
These are the reported facts, but there are two other incidents that served to personalize the issue for the members of the crew and add another dimension to the news clippings.
The first story is told by Jim Mietus, ’63. Sometime during in his first year rowing for Georgetown (probably spring of 1960) Jim went down to McDonough Gym to seek out someone in the Athletic Department to ask for an exemption from the Physical Training requirement on behalf of the members of the crew. It’s unclear whether this was done on Jim’s own initiative, but regardless, the response spoke volumes about the attitude of at least some in the AD toward the Crew and its members. “You and your crew are never going to amount to anything. You are wasting your time.” [25. Phone conversation.]
Cox Al DiFiore in action
Ye Domesday Book 1961
The second story is told by Al DiFiore [26. 2/13/13] and concerns his relationship with Fr, Cohalen, in the aftermath of the “no place for crew” remark in April, ’59. By way of background, Fr. Cohalen was a friend of the family who had helped with Al’s admission to GU. Walking out of White-Gravenor with friends the day the HOYA reported Cohalen’s comment Al was “blowing off steam about how unfair this was.”
“What I did not know was that there was a Jesuit right behind me listening to me spout off.
“The next day there was a note in my mail box to go see Cohalen. By now I had forgotten about my temper tantrum and the note did not mean much because he and I had remained good friends. When I got to his office . . . he said ‘I understand you are upset with my position regarding crew.” Being less than diplomatic, I answered “Yes. I think you are being totally unreasonable.” He very quietly responded by telling me that no one had asked me to come through those big gates out in front and if I did not like the way they ran things no one would miss me if I went out through those big gates and did not come back.
“I thanked him for his time and left.”
Taken together, the tenor of the clippings and the anecdotes created the mythology of “the hard-working underdogs vs. the hard-hearted administrators.” Of course there was substantial truth underlying the myth: the oarsmen did work hard both on the water and off, raising their funds by dues, solicitations and raffles, sometimes selling tickets on prizes they had not yet procured; and despite Fr. Bunn’s initial offer of support after a five year probationary period, the administration was flinty (and impolitic) in its early responses to the young upstarts,. Being told they’d have to wait years even for token recognition was galling, especially when their competition – long established crew programs like Marietta, LaSalle, and Jesuit rivals St. Joe’s, and Fordham - seemed comparatively so well-provided for. And while adversity built a strong spirit of camaraderie, in this case it also engendered an adversarial relationship with the university they represented. The Hoya rowers understandably felt like unwanted stepchildren.
But young men are impatient and particularly so since the opportunity for the glories of collegiate sport are fast-fleeting. So to be fair let’s try to look at things from the perspective of the university. In the post-John Thompson & Patrick Ewing era it is hard to remember that in the early sixties, Georgetown was not a wealthy school, nor one renowned for its athletic programs. The university had dropped varsity football long before, and supported only its basketball, cross-country and track (but not field events,) baseball, and tennis teams, of which only the runners attained national success. The athletic department’s budget was relatively small (compared with other universities of Georgetown’s stature,) and it clearly had no interest in encouraging a rag-tag bunch of freshmen and sophomores in a capital intensive, non-revenue producing sport that no one in the administration understood. People whose notions of collegiate athletics were grounded in the traditional American “ball” games were mystified by the enthusiasm of these kids for “messing about in boats.” And frankly, who could blame them? It’s easy in hindsight to criticize GU and they weren’t the easiest bunch to deal with, but at that time they were not to blame for thinking that these guys aren’t the world’s best bet. [27. Frank Barrett, 8/15/12 ]
Given this “go away, we aren’t interested” attitude within the administration, the success of Don Cadle in winning varsity recognition (along with even a minimum one thousand dollar allowance and boathouse rent) is all the more amazing. The “Cadle Touch” turned the cold shoulder to a sympathetic ear, [28. See Chapter Three for more on the “Cadle Touch.” ] and we must credit the university administration at least for recognizing a good thing when he walked in the door. Yet that very charm was a risky basis on which to rely, for when Don departed, there was fear that “it would be easy for the school’s administration to call it a day.” [29. Frank Barrett, 8/14/12. ] That they didn’t is the best evidence that in the final analysis they judged that crew – with or without Don Cadle - was indeed a good thing for both the University and its students.[30. It is also very likely that Fr. Joseph Sellinger, SJ (who became our moderator about this time) had something to do with lobbying his fellow Jesuits on behalf of the crew. ]
[1] This version of the famous but long-lost “Ad” comes from an article reprinted from the HOYA in the Spring of 1961. The by line is Michael Raoul-Duval.
[2] The contemporary report in the HOYA (3/31/60) gives the lower number; in the Raoul-Duval article a year later the higher number is given. See note 8, below.
[3] It was Inge Cadle who first read the ad and brought it to Don’s attention. Personal conversation, 10/18/12.
[4] In writing this history we must pay tribute to Inge Cadle who played a central part in the success of the GU crew. Not only did she feed them and launder their uniforms, she was also the financial patroness who underwrote her husband’s expenditures for boats, oars, equipment, etc. The Cadles were truly a “power couple” long before that phrase became common usage.
[5] Don spent his early childhood in Alabama, but the family later moved to Denver, so it is probably more accurate to say Don came from Denver, Colorado.
[6] Frank Barrett, 7/25/12
[7] Don was the first non-Englishman to be elected Captain of Boats at Balliol. Frank Barrett, 8/10/12
[8] Balliol College Boat Club website.
[9] According to the 1961 article by Raoul-Duval, “Out of fifteen applicants Mr. Maletz chose Don Cadle as Varsity coach and Thor Hansen for the Freshmen.” If this can be credited, it would explain why none of the officers of that year (Mike O’Brien, Frank Murray, Chuck Wolfretz, and Al DiFiore) recall being involved in the process. One wag ventured an alternative theory: “Knowing Don, he probably hired himself.”
[10] and [11] Thor Hansen (5/7/28 – 1/12/08) rose to the rank of Vice Admiral, and retired from the US Navy in 1982.
[12] Don’s sobriquet at Yale was either “the Denver Darling” according to Caron Cadle, (12/14/12 or “The Denver Dandy” according to Frank Barrett, (7/12/12). Whether a darling or a dandy, Don was from Denver.
[13] See the appendix for the definitions of amateurism in rowing.
[14] “OxBridge” will be used as a contraction for Oxford and Cambridge, England’s foremost universities and rowing powers.
[15] Etymologically, the term “varsity” itself is a colloquial abbreviation for the word “university.”
[16] The most pertinent summation of this paradigm is the GURA Constitution. See Appendix for the full text, circa 1964.
[17] St. Joe’s would eventually place second to Brown in the Dad Vail that year.
[18] Washington Post 5/1/60.
[19] The HOYA, 5/5/60
[20] By deduction it must have been 5/7/60. No accounts of this race have been found.
[21] Georgetown did not enter the Junior Varsity race at the 1960 Dad Vail.
[22] Vito Zambelli contributed this detail in a phone conversation 9/30/12. In those years the awards ceremonies were held on Boat House Row, and not, as in later years, on the dock by the grandstand.
[23] It must be noted that for a sport that was brand new to the campus and that had no alumni support, the Crew received very good and encouraging publicity during these years. Such coverage and the student-body support it engendered played a significant role in finally convincing the administration that the Crew was worthy of recognition.
[24] What was not mentioned in this article was the fact that in addition to the thousand dollar allowance, the University also paid an unknown amount to cover the rent for the Crew’s space in the new Thompson Boathouse. (Frank Barrett, 9/16/13)
[25] Phone conversation.
[26] 2/13/13
[27] Frank Barrett, 8/15/12
[28] See Chapter Three for more on the “Cadle Touch.”
[29] Frank Barrett, 8/14/12.
[30] It is also very likely that Fr. Joseph Sellinger, SJ (who became our moderator about this time) had something to do with lobbying his fellow Jesuits on behalf of the crew.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse