Golazo! Golazo!

June 21, 2006 9:08 AM

How is a GOLAZO! different from a GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL?

I've been watching the Univision coverage of the World Cup, which has been far better than the bad video and terrible commentators of ESPN. However, my knowledge of Spanish is sketchy at best -- I can order a beer and ask where the bathroom is.

During the England-Sweden game, Joe Cole unleashes a shot that deflects off the Swedish keeper and into the goal. The Univision commentator normally screams "GOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!" repeatedly after a score, but this time he screamed "GOLAZO! GOLAZO!" repeatedly while "GOLAZO!" flashed on the screen.

So, what makes a "GOLAZO!" different from a "GOOOOOOOOOOOL?" Someone please enlighten this gringo.

posted by dw to sports, hobbies, & recreation (17 comments total)

-AZO is used as a suffix to denote that something is huge. So "golazo" is kinda like "megagoal".
posted by bugbread at 9:11 AM on June 21, 2006

A "golazo" is a "gol" that is scored in an especially skillful or exciting manner, or, alternately, at a particularly key moment in the match.
posted by dersins at 9:12 AM on June 21, 2006 [1 favorite]

Well, that's easy. Thanks!
posted by dw at 9:40 AM on June 21, 2006

bugbread's right. It's used as a way of saying "great goal" or "amazing goal".
posted by Penks at 10:55 AM on June 21, 2006

I've wondered this for years. Thanks.
posted by ikkyu2 at 11:11 AM on June 21, 2006

Its GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL!!! 2.0
posted by Atreides at 11:11 AM on June 21, 2006

In a more serious note, I'm curious as to how the Spanish language commentary is better than the ESPN, since the poster doesn't appear to speak much, if hardly any Spanish. Is it the personalities and different level of excitement of the commentators?

From my own experience, I've preferred the American broadcasts, if only because I do manage to pick up more information about the game or players.
posted by Atreides at 11:13 AM on June 21, 2006

The short answer is that the ESPN commentators say a lot of stupid things. Calling David Beckham's wife Victoria Posh, e.g. Or saying how the only African team doing well at the time was Trinidad and Tobago (about as much an African country as Argentina is).

Also, Univision has a better feed of the games, and it doesn't cover the screen in massive graphics telling you about the wonderful things coming up on ESPN while the game is still being played behind the graphics.
posted by dw at 12:05 PM on June 21, 2006

The ESPN guys sound pretty uninterested in the game except when there's a goal or one seems to be imminent; at other times they muse about soccer in general or just stay silent. The Univision guys are completely invested in the game; even if your Spanish isn't great, their obvious deep knowledge and enthusiasm makes it a much more rewarding experience.
posted by languagehat at 12:20 PM on June 21, 2006

This reminds me of an oldy but goody Simpsons skit that someone re-sent me this week. Relevant to the discussion of ESPN vs. Univision and teams that played today.

YouTube link
posted by mpemulis at 12:44 PM on June 21, 2006

Yeah, if I have to hear one more ESPN announcer refer to "Michael Beckham" or explain the offside rule for the 4756th time, I'm flying to Bristol snd punching someone in the throat. I speak about 8 words of spanish including "gol," "penal," and "tiro de esquina," and I still prefer Univision's broadcasts.
posted by dersins at 12:47 PM on June 21, 2006

From the answers, I'd guess that I haven't watched nearly enough pro soccer/football games to appreciate a good commentary. Though, working on it. Thanks for the response and the slight derail.
posted by Atreides at 1:03 PM on June 21, 2006

A great recent Univision comment in the Portugal-Mexico game was "Uh-oh...time to take out your rosary and your calculator" The difference in commentary is that the Univision guys are part of the game - they care about it deeply at a very human level and it comes across. In contrast, the ESPN folks are like automated commentary-bots.
posted by vacapinta at 3:41 PM on June 21, 2006

In contrast, a "golito" is one scored in a particularly wimpy or unsportsmanlike way.
posted by gottabefunky at 3:50 PM on June 21, 2006

I have nothing to add to this apart from to say that the ESPN commentary is fucking killing me! I do speak Spanish, but I forgot that there were other channels showing matches. Therefore, I will watch as many matches as I can on Univision from now on.
posted by ob at 3:59 PM on June 21, 2006

Oh, while we're on the subject of the -azo suffix, a good friend of mine always refers to his preferred post-repast digestif as a whiskazo...
posted by ob at 4:01 PM on June 21, 2006

I have gone back and forth between English-language broadcasts and Spanish-language based on only one thing: whether or not I could get the English in HD. Otherwise the Spanish is much better. And I don't speak Spanish, even though I can often figure out what they're saying on the basis of Italian.

It is absolutely criminal that ESPN has a baseball announcer calling the most important games. This O'Brien idiot was talking incessantly in the Italy-Germany game about how terribly Italy was playing, when they had posession 58% of the time and like 8 shots on goal versus 1 (disclaimer: I am a big Italy fan).

I am going to have to watch the final on ABC because it's in HD, but I will miss the "GOOOOOOOOOOL" [breath] "OOOOOOOOOOL" [breath] "GOLAZO GOLAZO GOLAZO" thing we got in the sweet, sweet victory of the Azzuri against Germany.
posted by lackutrol at 12:36 AM on July 6, 2006