Who's more unluckier? (bands, Beatles, famous, group)

[PostSecularist]

Pete Best or Ronald Wayne?

Pete was the original drummer who got kicked out of The Beatles a month before they became one of the most famous bands in history. Ronald was one of the 3 co-founders of Apple Computer, but voluntarily cashed in his entire 10% ownership in the company before Apple became of the greatest tech companies in the world?

So who's more unluckier?
Me, I would say Ronald Wayne edges out Pete, as Pete was kicked out: if he hadn't been he would've stayed with the Beatles. Ronald on the other hand, voluntarily screwed himself out of $35 billion dollars worth of stock.

What's your opinion?

[Sudcaro]

My opinion is you can't compare those two situations...

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by PostSecularist

Pete Best or Ronald Wayne?

So who's more unluckier?
Me, I would say Ronald Wayne edges out Pete, as Pete was kicked out: if he hadn't been he would've stayed with the Beatles. Ronald on the other hand, voluntarily screwed himself out of $35 billion dollars worth of stock.

What's your opinion?

I could be said that, had Pete stayed with the Beatles, the group might never have achieved the fame they did. Ringo Starr is a great drummer. He had the right look, personality and talent which completed the famous mop tops. In other words, The Beatles wouldn't be The Beatles without Ringo.

As for Ronald, he must have felt more comfortable with the bird in the hand. I can't help wonder how many times he's mentally kicked himself for that move.