Doug,

You're right about "what's the point?" But the problem is the opposite. There is too much evidence for too many outlaws who were called "Robin Hood" and similar names. There's a fugitive murderer in 1213 named Robert Hood, a fugitive Robert Hod in 1225 in York, etc.   

In 1261, a man was indicted for robbery. He was first known as "William son of Robert Lefevre," but became "William Robehod" in a later court roll. This suggests that "Rob Hood" was already a common nickname for a robber, like "John Doe" today for an unknown victim, by that time. Given this, we can never be sure that any such figure called "Robin Hood" isn't just being called by a legendary name...so no such evidence can ever be very convincing. Others have argued that "William son of Robert Lefevre" was a description of him, and "William Robehod" was his actual name...i.e., his father was Robert Robehod, and was a smith, who would have been called in Anglo-Norman Robert LeFevre (Robert the smith). Nevertheless, as long as the doubt is there, no evidence of a "Robert Hood" who is an outlaw will convince most scholars that they have found the "real" or original one.

Scholars do believe that the legendary exploits of three real-life people, Fulke, Eustace, and Hereward, contributed elements to the later story of Robin Hood. But this is very different from saying that any of them WAS Robin Hood, or that there is or ever was a "real Robin Hood."