Rosstaman, obviously nothing I say here will or should change what you hear. But even folks who are much more into technical virtuousity than I am will acknowledge Ringo's preeminence in the development of rock drumming. Think back to when The Beatles first burst on the world scene - they were immediately different for many reasons, including their chord changes, harmonies, sheer melodic richness, and lyrical directness, not to mention their hairstyle. But the one thing that most set them apart sonically from the pop of their day and kicked off the British invasion was their treatment of the beat (hence the band name, and the stealing away of the word "beat" from the beatnik generation as a genre designation - all British invasion music was now 'beat music').
That beat was just so much bigger and more driving than what rock & roll had been up to that point, that The Beatles also did for drums what they did more famously for guitars: set off a world-wide teenage instrument buying wave (much to the dismay of piano and saxophone teachers everywhere). The Beatles were the first rock band to become famous for playing their own instruments as a regular self-contained unit (setting up the paradigm the music has followed ever since, excluding disco-derived genres), the first to really define the prototypical modern guitar/guitar/bass/drums instrumental lineup (with apologies to The Crickets, their namesake, and instumental groups like The Shadows), and Ringo was the first drummer in rock to become a star rather than an anonymous backing musician.
You're right, I'm a musician who's not a drummer (guitar player), but strictly as a Beatles lover and someone interested in the history of the music, I think anyone who listens can tell that Ringo changed the way drums sounded in rock: More focus brought to what has since been considered the heart of the kit - snare, hi-hat, and kick, with less emphasis on toms or riding on the big cymbal, and more on crashing and using toms for accents; deemphasis of shuffle beats, half-times, or triplets in favor of straight ahead 4/4's (the 'Beatles beat' was much less overtly jazz or r&b influenced than rock had been in the 50's); moving of the drums way up in the recorded mix, taking traditional beat-keeping chores away from discarded instruments like piano, horns, or doo-wop-style vocal choruses. There were actecedents to The Beatles' approach to be sure, but all these were rendered somewhat not 'current'-sounding when The Beatles hit, because they just stripped everything down while at the same time turning it up a notch (just compare the two well-known versions of "Twist & Shout", The Isley Brothers' and The Beatles', to hear what I'm talking about.)
Ringo was also probably the first drummer in rock to be noticed for the way he looked and moved while he played, and for the appearance of his kit. But even more importantly than the attention he brought to the drummer as a band member and to the beat in the music, Ringo is still unsurpassed for his composing of drum parts that perfectly complement songs and stick in the listener's head, just as much as guitar riffs do. He helped move rock drumming beyond just keeping time more than had been heard since the early days of Elvis' backing trio with D.J. Fontana and Jerry Allison with Buddy Holly, but those drummers didn't have the kind of musically varied and sophisticated material to work with that Lennon & McCartney provided. As The Beatles moved past their initial beat-group phase and into their extended period of unprecedented stylistic evolution, Ringo showed himself fully up to the task of basically redefining the possibilities of his instrument in the band context on a virtually continual basis, playing-, arranging-, and sound-wise. Of course others appeared to push boundaries even further, but it should not be forgotten that Ringo opened the door which more virtuousic players like Moon, Baker, Mitchell, and Bonham were able to walk through. And the sounds he kept developing during The Beatles' later years were the blueprint for the work of players like Fleetwood and Mason in the 70's.
I remember back to high school, where the common rap against Ringo among the music-heads was that he "couldn't even play a military press roll" or words to that effect. I don't know how true that really was - the charge became so widespread that I've read anecdotal accounts of people who knew and worked with Ringo specifically debunking it, saying they never heard him not be able to play any drum part, and that he always kept perfect time and never required multiple takes. As far as McCartney playing drums occasionally on some of his later material (and also "The Ballad of John and Yoko"), well, he's a good drummer in his own right, and The Beatles were often working separately by that time (Ringo even quit the band for about a day during the sessions which became the "Let It Be" film). Whatever - all that's unimportant anyway. Just take a careful listen to Ringo's work on songs as simple or weird, rocking or dreamy, but always as varied, as "Penny Lane", "Let It Be", "Day Tripper", "Ticket To Ride", "Hold Me Tight", "Tomorrow Never Knows", "Come Together", "Something", "I Saw Her Standing There", "Birthday", "A Day in The Life", "Paperback Writer", or any of well over a hundred others, and see whether you can imagine any other drummer coming up with better parts, playing them more to perfection, or getting a more distinctive or apporopriate sound doing so. I can't reach any conclusion except that with any other drummer (no matter how virtuousic), the world's greatest and most important rock band ever would have been diminished from what they were, same as if Zep hadn't had John Bonham or The Stones didn't have Charlie Watts. Ringo may not be your favorite drummer if you're not a Beatles fan, but if you are, I honestly can't see how you could think he "sucks".
P.S. - Canuck, IMO Peart's sophomorically pretentious lyrics are the worst thing about Rush aside from Geddy Lee's voice. But you're right - for how I feel about 'awards', see the recent Grammy thread...
