Rich, the removal of Viv's phenomenal Tests to make your point is all well and good, but you have to see the counter-argument too - ie removing his particularly poor matches to show things the other way.
You say that the "real Viv" was his first 104 Tests. Fair enough - in this period of time he made 7,714 runs at 52.84. A very, very fine record, but tarnished you say by the fact that if you remove his 25 extraordinary matches then he averaged low-40s in his other 79. No argument there, what you say is statistically true, even if I don't agree necessarily with the assertions you make from it.
However, shortly after his second amazing peak of 15 Tests, Richards had a bad run, due in part to an eye complaint, exhaustion and simple loss of form. In a 16 Test period from late 1981 to early 1984 he made just 771 runs at 33.52.
Here's where the argument works the other way - if you take away that very poor 16 Test run (which to me is no less legitimate than excluding his 25 force-of-nature matches), then the other 88 Tests of the "real Viv's" career produced 6,943 runs at an average of 56.44 - which is absolutely superb by any standards throughout cricket history.