He wasn't just as dominant. Since he lost and they were not consecutive. It is a factor in the total analysis. I don't see how this is complicated. How big or small of a factor is up to each person. But it clearly is a factor.

And besides shouldn't the GOAT be held to a higher standard?

And what sounds more impressive is irrelevant. You have to consider competition, coaching, teammates etc. And then you can make a valid point but just looking at titles is stupid.

I don't care who is the GOAT and I am not arguing for one or the other. I am really just arguing against poor logic.