I dont get why people find Woody Allen funny I literally cant think of a single movie of his that I like but hey thats just me
It's seen as a game you can dominate with sheer physique. For the upper body it is a very physical sport. 'Experts' say that was even more the case 15 and 20 years ago with handchecking and (obligatory) man to man defenses. Regardless, Michael Jordan ranked invariably in the top 3 or top 5 of the famous/renowned 'L'Equipe Champion of Champions' survey, while France hasn't been a basketball crazy country in the way other European countries have been. IIRC he was top three as late as 1997 and 1998. As a sporting phenomenon (more specifically: an athletic phenomenon) he's one of the few untouchables imho, arguably one of the two untouchables. Of course his standing is also helped by many other numerous factors (research by econometrists suggest that he had a strong/superior support cast in all but one of his finals), with all lights on 'green' so to speak, but other big names couldn't do the same in similar conditions and with comparable opportunities. It has been said that he could compete/approach for the world record long jump if he wanted to. When limiting "phenomenons" to 20 names and including four athletes among them, it is tough to leave him out. It's very difficult to compare him with inventors of centuries before him (when rate of invention was slower). http://www.theatlantic.com/business...s-greatest-inventions-really-happened/258525/ I think there's a very strong argument for the #1 spot, and he should be placed on a higher regard than Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs was maybe more creative from a design, elegance and marketing perspective, and wealthier (Henry Ford said Edison is the greatest inventor of his time but the worst businessman, relative to his production) but Edison his legacy is enormous. Steve Jobs was also fantastic in marketing himself. The number of patents, footprints in different fields (sound, film, electricity), directly influencing/stimulating other big names and his company is still standing. It remains to be seen whether the same will be true with Apple or their core businesses (that is: selling overpriced mobile phones and laptops for status seekers). Historians who argue that the 19th century has brought about more enduring and profound changes for the daily lives of normal people than the 20th century, inevitably mention Edison. If you ask me, he's definitely worth a mention as a "phenomenon" with a phenomenal legacy. Certainly worth a mention next to The Beatles or Pelé. My discussions with e.g. my brother also revealed however that Edison was not free from controversy, and the originality of his ideas and products are not free from controversy either (cf. Bill Gates). Whatever may be true of that is beyond the scope of my knowledge and competence, but if you ask me I'm tempted to say he's a worthy call for a phenomenal figure. At least since the start of the industrial era (and rapid GDP growth post-1800). How he fares against an Einstein or Newton is interesting; many harbor the implicit/explicit thought that businessman and inventors depart from what scientists make possible and open up for them. edit: after quick search http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/business/an-analogy-of-thomas-edison-and-steve-jobs.html?_r=0 https://www.quora.com/Who-was-the-greater-inventor-Thomas-Edison-or-Nikola-Tesla
It's the jokes, mostly. The single lines. I've never in my life heard anything so intelligently witty.
What the hell how can you even compare Einstein with an athlete like MJ or Pelé? The impact and contribution to humanity of an athlete can never reach only nearly the ones of an scientist (Einstein, Newton, Leibniz, etc.), human rights activist (Mandela, Gandhi, etc.), politician (Lincoln, Kennedy, etc.). It may be possible however to compare artists with athletes, but please do not include the greatest minds of human history in comparison to football players (because it is still "only" football).
I will have to watch more woody Allen mate.. i only really saw his films when i was young and havent revisted them..maybe i didnt appreciate the humour then as much as i would now.. I am more into sit coms and sketches..
I didnt think we were actually comparing as such .. i thought we were listing phenomenons from different fields - Art, science, politics, music, different sports - football, boxing etc ..
Good call. Which is exactly why e.g. Muhammed Ali often scores so well despite not being the best and/or most dominant boxer. Because he had traits of a speaker, spokesman and activist. On that note.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-12/31/066r-123199-idx.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_100:_The_Most_Important_People_of_the_Century Pelé definitely a greater "phenomenon" than Kennedy by the way - for me definitely at least. Think Pelé away and the world loses more than it would lose with Kennedy. Kennedy is also steeply sliding down in the 'great presidents' lists by historians, and rightly so. Pelé stopped wars, as his fans say. Correct. If it's up to me I'd include two and not four athletes among the 20 names. Then, as said, if music/audio is included also film deserves a consideration (as a carrier of messages and meaning).
Can a snooker great, no matter how legendary, really compare to Shakespeare, Michelangelo or Picasso? Ali is the greater and more significant figure. Not really, as I don't see being the greatest car racer anywhere near comparable to being the greatest composer. Maybe @Jaweirdo needs to further define what he is really asking? I have to disagree with almost everything you have here. To me, there is no other Western artist that comes close to Michelangelo or Picasso - superb call by OP to include both. Also, Descartes or Pascal, great as they were, can't really touch Newton or Einstein. I will get more into this when I have time. Your filmmakers are all among the top, though Kurosawa, Goddard, Fellini, Satyajit Ray, Scorsese and Spielberg are right up there with them.
Richard Pryor for me, changed the way comedy is delivered in content and timing. Don't you feel that Stevie Wonder's peak was too short to be listed here? Fantastic post, 100% true. The great albums all came under "The Beatles" so it's fair to list the entire band. @Giles , I rank Nikola Tesla as the true phenomenon. https://soundcloud.com/tesla/edisons-medicine-album-version It's a very contrived game, it was actually invented rather than evolve organically from tradition. And there is very little variety to it.
Actually, great artists are more exceptional than great scientists and definitely political figures. Most scientific breakthroughs were going to happen regardless of said scientist in question, for example calculus was actually invented simultaneously by two individuals working independently. There is never anything resembling a "Hamlet" or "Fifth Symphony" without the authors of those masterpieces. The exception is Einstein as his theories are really a leap that would have never occurred otherwise.
"Decades" is often seen as the worst case scenario (mid 1960s), by the people who know. http://phys.org/news/2015-11-einstein-decades-longer-gravity.html https://www.quora.com/If-Albert-Ein...have-been-found-and-proposed-by-others-by-now http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-there-will-never-be-another-einstein/ Without question however he belongs on the list of 20 names ("phenomenons"). As a reminder though (...): http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
People "who know" often are too much of insiders to be objective. I have heard otherwise multiple times from those who have no agenda. Scientific American is a mediocre publication.
Nice assertions but it will be appreciated if you can show these people without agenda. It happens just as often that "insiders" like to pimp up their own field and people vis-a-vis other fields (and I don't say it is the case with Einstein), which is only natural and even unintentional. Although "insiders" are often perfectly placed to rank/appreciate people within and limited to their own field and profession. Every field needs their icons, geniuses and demi-Gods. The opposite happens very often too with insiders, relative to other professions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Déformation_professionnelle Anyway, it is only a footnote. The most important thing is that he belongs among the 20 names while e.g. Michael Jackson is uncertain when including four musicians.
You're probably right about Tesla .. but both were great in very different ways. Tesla used to work for Edison but they ended up as rivals.. I do enjoy a bit of richard Pryor but i think monty python were more groundbreaking in comedy... just my opinion..
From the sporting world, Don Bradman has to be considered. He is statisically so far ahead of any other cricketer and a cultural icon in Australia. Also the cross sport stars, such as Max Woosnam or CB Fry could each easily be described as a phenomenon. From science, some of the great Arab polymaths should be in the frame - Al-Haytham (Alhazen), Al-Biruni, Ibn Rushd (Averroes), ibn Sina (Avicenna) and al-Razi (Rhazes) have a sustained body of work to compare with anyone listed here and a massive influence on the world.
One sec: I'm purely talking about being a genius (or being perceived as such) in one particular field and of sportsmen who became all-round cultural icons. I'm not comparing or ranking the different fields. To me, any sportsman of any kind is not comparable at all to the great figures of the past. As much as I love football, we're talking about a sport. Ultimately, in essence, it's a game. You can't compare a football genius to a great philosopher, artist, writer, scientist or philantropist. They are the giants on whose shoulders we are all resting. Maradona or Pelé were football geniuses, but they are still "mere" footballers. The same goes with Michael Jordan or Ayrton Senna. If you're talking about the impact they had on society at large, the stature they have in terms of being cultural icons, then I feel they both belong on the list (but behind Pelé, Alì and arguably Maradona). If we want to rank and compare them, then they are not even in the same planet of the true greats of human history (not that it's their fault, obviously: hardly anybody is). PS: good list of film directors there, I'd probably put Godard and Fellini in an ideal all-time top-5 with my three picks, while Scorsese probably belongs to the top 10. From a purely artistic point of view (i.e. not counting his huge social and commercial importance) I really wouldn't consider Spielberg.
As a phenomenon, icon and societal force I'd take Ali over Godard with my eyes closed. Same for Pelé vs Kennedy. Of course he is not Lincoln, Churchill or even Hitler. But I'd take him over the fairly insignificant and irrelevant Kennedy. As a phenomenon, icon and force.
Yeah sorry about that, it is hard for me to explain what I mean. I guess what I mean is which human is least likely to happen. I.E. a person like Einstein only comes once in 500 years, where as a guy like Messi might come by once in a hundred years. So Einstein for me would be ranked above Messi. That is what I meant if that makes any sense. Its not comparing sports to science directly like the poster above suggested.
Art is my field of expertise so there is probably some bias there. But I think he was truly a diamond in the rough. He changed so many things in his field (art). More than Mozart did in his respective field, and the others listed. BTW I like the inclusion of Shakespeare in this conversation @Pipiolo
As a phenomenon, icon and societal force yes (or at least they are comparable), that's what I'm saying. As (for lack of a better expression right now) contributors to the development of humanity, as thinkers, as "true greats", no. One is a great artist, the other a boxer.