In terms of sporting achievements probably not. Boxing experts and statisticians rate him somewhere around #3 or #4 but definitely not #1. However, his aura, charisma and all the rest is very strong. His societal significance is of a level not matched by the legendary footballers (most probably). In my opinion Pelé and Cruijff are the closest in that respect. A true example from Gazzetta dello Sport: But Muhammed Ali his symbolic significance, as a societal force, is most likely of a level that none of the mentioned footballers can show (and Michael Jordan, per starting post, neither). The 'masses' rate him on a different plateau than the boxing experts do, who might be better aware of the subtleties and intracitaties of the boxing scene. http://www.theharrispoll.com/sports/Greatest-Sports-Stars-All-Time.html To be honest, in the light of 'sporting achievements' - both in a narrow and broad sense - I would personally pick Tiger Woods over him; I'm entertaining that idea at least. Not only was he arguably more dominant (2000 US Open), but also all other sports-related impact such as enormously popularizing the sport (to new demographics) and raising the athletic bar. He brought athleticism to the activity and in that sense made the sport. Who should Ali replace? That's the toughest question...
I disagree with your statement about Gandhi however. The reason I excluded him and Mandela is because a political/human rights stance, while important, is not of the same achievement as an artistic masterpiece or scientific breakthrough. He certainly belongs. I feel Pele, Ali, Maradona and Jordan are the four most transcendental sports figures of the 20th century, although I see basketball more as a game rather than a sport.
For me, Alex Higgins from the snooker world can fit in with this topic. The man had no proper snooker basics but managed to win the world snooker champ twice. It's like a footballer who cannot properly juggle the ball but can win the Bollon D'or. Another on with a similar feat is Srinivasa Ramanujan, a mathematician who started it by himself but can match those famous names in Europe.
Ali is often regarded by experts as the greatest heavyweight.. some reckon that he fought in the toughest era for heavyweights... ( i know there would be votes for joe louis as the best heavyweight) but no heavyweight moved like ali or had his mental toughness and stamina. He could take punches from extremely hard hitting opponents.. he was the first to win three world titles.. Like @Jaweirdo says, sugar ray Robinson is usually ranked number one when experts list the best. But like you say, no matter where Ali ranks - for societal significance, charisma and showmanship he is number one in the boxing world.. does that make him a phenomenon ?
Very arguably imho. If the subject is "phenomenal figure". Jaweirdo is right to include expressions of 'sound' but if we include 'visuals' or 'film' (for many even a stronger and more powerful carrier of meaning) a case can be made for Steven Spielberg too I'd say - don't underestimate his effect on popular culture and pioneering the blockbuster genre (clear links with Star Wars, Indiana Jones for example). For sports Jordan and Pelé are the two untouchables in my opinion. "My name is Ronald Reagan, I’m the President of the United States of America. But you don’t need to introduce yourself, because everyone knows who Pele is.” “Pele was the only footballer who surpassed the boundaries of logic.” http://www.fifa.com/live-scores/news/y=2010/m=10/news=what-they-said-about-pele-1321917.html I refuse to place a lunatic, cheat and marketing/producer creation as Michael Jackson in that category. Elvis Presley is as said a stronger case for being a "phenomenon" (more successful, no less influential).
Anyway, it's an interesting topic but it depends a lot on personal tastes and above all on a very personal definition of "genius" and "phenomenon". To me, the greatest genius / phenomenon of all time is indisputably Leonardo Da Vinci. In the arts, Michelangelo is certainly the first one who comes to mind (and I feel that other artists were also more groundbreaking / influential than Picasso). In literature, Shakespeare would probably qualify as the greatest genius and Dante as the greatest poet overall (if you get what I mean). In the sciences, well, Einstein and Newton are certainly the first names I can think of. But Descartes and Pascal would probably qualify even better as "geniuses". In cinema, it's probably either Welles or Chaplin or maybe Eisenstein. In (popular) music, I'm not sure. It really depends on what you mean. But The Beatles were geniuses in their own right. In football, Pelé, Maradona, Garrincha and Best are probaly the players who are most often identified as "geniuses", possibly because they were the most flashy. Messi will probably join them. Again, it really depends on what you mean with the word "genius" or "phenomenon", but most people wouldn't put the other greats (Di Stéfano, Cruijff, Platini...) in the same category I reckon.
I would definitely include Walt Disney and perhaps Steven Spielberg. Basically, I think that cartoons/animations and film/cinema are vastly more powerful social factors (than Picasso could ever hope to be) relative to the average person. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs also come to mind. EDIT: Actually, in the world of cinema Woody Allen probably was the first hypster ever, and arguably the best at it also. And in addition to arguably creating a new genre (read: hypster-flicks), he also arguably was one of the very first out-of-the-box-comedians (which he did in an era where comedy was very clean and rather boring). I know there are serious questions about his quality as a human being, but as an artist he probably is one of the most influential of the past 50 or so years. So much of today's "high art" entertainment is imo largely based on what Woody Allen started doing earlier than anybody else I can think of.
In the field of comedy - i would say that Monty python were a phenomenon.. very influential worldwide ..infact they were/are known as the beatles of comedy... If we were voting for a phenomenon from each field - python would get my vote for comedy.. ( Entirely different to Allen i know)
On the subject of Michael Jackson's inclusion I would like to point to the musical peak creativity/productivity of three musicians that I would deem more proper to be included in here. Not saying that I would definitely include them, but if Michael Jackson is there, I see no reason not to ponder the inclusion of the following popular musicians: Bob Dylan, Stevie Wonder and Prince. Dylan’s run of three all-time classic albums recorded in 1965 and 1966 (Bringing It All Back Home, Highway 61 Revisited, Blonde and Blonde) is still considered arguably the finest creative peak period of a popular musician. Then look at Stevie Wonder who released three masterpieces between 1972 and 1974 (Talking Book, Innervisions, Fullfillingness’ First Finale). A period of rare musical creativity topped off by the double album Songs in the Key of Life in 1976. Finally, Prince. Him releasing high-quality studio LPs in every year between 1978 and 1992 (except in 1983 when he was working on his movie Purple Rain) is a singular achievement. His peak years being 1982 to 1987 with LPs 1999, Purple Rain, Around the World in a day, Parade and Sign 'o' the Times. Michael Jackson in comparison took 3-5 years to complete an LP in the years of his peak creativity and what’s more he was far more reliant on outside contributions then Dylan, Wonder and Prince. As an example few realize that one of Jackson’s signature songs, Thriller, was not written by himself. And of course as a musician he was a non-factor on his records, not playing instruments himself plus depending on a masterful producer like Quincy Jones.
There's been so many great comedians, that reducing it to just one name is just a bit silly I'd say. But overall, I think comedy by and large did slowly became what Woody Allen was already doing way back in the day. That being said, I don't at all consider myself a proper "expert" on comedy.
When thinking in that direction I'm inclined to vouch for the creators of the computer (personal computer), microchip and world wide web instead. The microchip (just as the intermodal container and a few other objects) has been widely identified as an important agent for 'globalization'. I'm not an IT specialist but my brother is. edit: I can see the point by the way that Spielberg has an exposure and access level that avant-garde Picasso could never hope to have. Spielberg is widely listed as one of the three/four 'greatest' movie directors ever, and of those he is certainly financially the most successful. He has also kickstarted the blockbuster genre for sure, and he's linked to many famous franchises such as Jaws, Indiana Jones and even Star Wars.
What would you say about MJ in comparison to the showman Elvis Presley? In relation to the subject of "biggest phenomenon". I'm aware that he wrote and produced (as in: producer) even less. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Phillips https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Tom_Parker
While he was very influential on the musicians directly after him (mostly 1960s British invasion bands) his influenced diminished quickly in the following decades, which is different to the major acts that emerged in the 1960s and 70s. There are still many new bands who cite Jimi Hendrix, the Beatles, Pink Floyd etc. as concrete musical influences which is not the same with Presley’s music. And even those musicians that directly followed Presley did not incorporate that many elements of his style. To me it comes down to Presley having been a huge influence because of his charisma and starpower, becoming the first musician to rival hollywood stars in that field, not that much because of his musical inventiveness. So while his influence was huge it was not that much his music and usually his influence is considered that big because he influenced the Beatles who continue today to be an influence on many musicians. So it’s actually more an indirect kind of influence. Elvis Presley himself was influenced a great deal by Mario Lanza. So does that make Mario Lanza as influential as Elvis and the Beatles? Hardly. His inability to write his own songs makes him stand out negatively among the great rock acts. His fans often say that he started in a time when singers just did not write their own songs like Sinatra and Crosby. But that is wrong because his rock’n’roll companions all wrote most of their own classic songs. Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Eddie Cochran, Carl Perkins and Jerry Lee Lewis were all songwriters of their own. Basically Elvis Presley was the only original rock’n’roller who couldn’t write his own songs and that to me is a major drawback. Lastly, Elvis Presley in my opinion had a serious lack of artistic ambition. Once he found a successful "formula", he stuck to it as long as possible. The fact that he churned dozens of mediocre films plus bad soundtracks just because he could make a lot of money with that clearly speaks that he valued income far higher than artistic credibility, which is another vital point that sets him apart negatively from other major rock acts. In addition the fact that he was the puppet of his manager lowers my opinion of him as an artist. My comparison to Presley sticking to his formula is to imagine the Beatles had stuck to their "formula" which brought them worldwide success, the "Beatlemania formula", which catered to teenage girls mostly. With Presley’s mind-set, they would have continued to record songs in the same vein as She Loves You, From Me To You, All My Loving or I Want to Hold your Hand for as long as they could because it was a proven success formula. Instead, by 1965 they were experimented with a different approach to songwriting, drifting away from boy-loves-girl themes (influenced by Dylan) and by 1966 they came up with ‘out-of-this-world’ songs like Tomorrow Never Knows, taking a big risk in terms of their popularity. It all worked out well for them but they couldn’t have foreseen that. They were risking alienation of their female teen fans when they changed their style in 1966 and that’s something Presley would never had done.
Dealing with this specific question I would think that Presley could somehow hold his own against black showmen like James Brown, Michael Jackson and Prince, probably the only white man I can think of. Though I would still rate all three of them highers as live performers than Elvis Presley. Personally I do not rate showmanship that highly anyway. I think the most underrated guy in that regard is Prince, who I rate at the same level as Michael Jackson in terms of showmanship.
What about the rolling stones run of classic albums - beggars banquet, let it bleed, sticky fingers, exile on main st - the best album run in rock history in my opinion.. ( i know its all subjective)
do all the beatles need to be listed? seems unfair plus lets face it Ringo Starr alone would be ranked that highly but Lennon might be
All great albums but I left out groups because it is more impressive for solo artists to release high-quality LPs in short succession. Otherwise the Beatles' run from Rubber Soul to Sgt. Pepper from 1965 to 1967 would have to be mentioned, too.