I always thought John looked the coolest on stage. That trademark wide legged, hunch shouldered stance looked natural to him and seemed to mark him out as the alpha male of the group, a proper front man. At a time when groups had to have a leader, he was unquestionably it. It helped that he was the most naturally gifted vocalist of the four (in my opinion).
As for timing, he always struck me as having more natural rhythm than Paul or George. He was underrated as a guitarist but his biggest failing on stage was fluffing his words - he never was very good at remembering lyrics, even his own! Paul and Ringo may have been the more showbizzy Beatles, but this only served to bolster Lennon and Harrison's more intriguing (dare I say charismatic?) presence both on and off stage.
Fan that I am, I must confess to always finding Paul far and away the most irritating and false on stage in those early Beatle days. Look at the way his head is shaking nervously whilst he sings on the 1963 Royal Variety Show . And I hated the way he kind of flicked his elbow in whenever he spun away from the microphone. Just little things but they either endear or annoy you I suppose. Always came over slightly too "hammy" for me. Funny when you stop to consider Paul was undoubtedly the one most at home on stage.
What I liked about the on stage Beatles was their ability to sing AND play (John, don't forget, could sing and accompany himself on both guitar and harmonica). Sorry, but I was never taken in by the swirling, twirling on stage antics of Jagger and Daltrey - to me they were simply prancing around to gloss over the fact they weren't talented enough to sing and competently play an instrument at the same time. Not so much Daltrey, but Jagger certainly always just looked silly and ridiculous to me - faintly embarrassing to be honest.
Will you tell him or shall I?