I'm an old school mma fan, been watching this sport awhile. When I started if you got 5 finishes in a row that was basically unheard of to not get a title shot. The guy hasn't seen a 1st round in the UFC and has outclassed all his opponents. You have guys above him who have lost fights brutally, sure they might be on winning streaks but to be undefeated in the UFC like he is with those finishes is crazy.
Maybe JDS comes to mind as the only guy who had to prove more to finally get his shot but I'm sick of guys that look top of the division have to string a crazy streak together. It's becoming too common now and the reason why is always just like you stated, the guys above "have to make the best career moves for themselves". I get it, but also it's the mentality that turned boxers into undefeated can crushers who avoid the tough matchups. The more we as fans excuse these decisions the closer it becomes like that. These guys get on insane win streaks and they are at the end of their rope and luck by the time they have the title and its statistically more likely they'll have a short title defense run because of it.
I agree with parts of this and can't quite get there on others. In talking about how number of title defenses shouldn't be an arbitrary gatekeeping metric for measuring greatness of one's legacy to previous champions, I have argued in previous posts how the current format of the sport is such that it simply doesn't encourage long title defense reigns. It takes longer for guys on average to make it to the UFC in the first place as compared to decades ago, it takes longer for them to make it into the rankings, it takes longer for them to make it into the Top 10, then the Top 5, and then to get a title shot before the topic of title defenses even comes up. So yeah, I agree that this is an unfortunate side effect.
That being said, I don't think the solution is to hitch one's wagon to any new shiny prospect who fights in an exciting way and seems to have the goods at the expense of other fighters in the division who have more tenure and are ranked above him. Spivak is still in his 20s, has shown a willingness and ability to improve, has looked great in his last few outings, and went from a medicore prospect to a legit contender. He's on a three-fight finish streak. Should a rocky start to his UFC career cause him to be thrown by the wayside in favor of a dude who only has two wins inside the division (only one of which was against a ranked contender)? What about Marcin Tybura? Very forgettable fighter in many aspects most would agree, but the guy is 7-1 in his last 8 bouts. That's crazy.
Mind you, I'm not encouraging rank-squatting. I think it has caused divisions like Lightweight to become somewhat stagnant. If a ranked fighter is coming off a loss, he or she should be compelled to fight someone ranked below them coming off a win -- full stop. Sometimes other things happen because people are booked, injured, or you have lots of fighters adjacent to one another all coming off wins/losses and so things just have to happen and that's fine.
So yeah, I like guys like Almeida and Chimaev and the like. Monstrous finishing machines who come into the division and strike fear into the ranks before storming their way toward the top. But I don't agree with
anyone getting fast-tracked due to hype alone. If a fighter at the top requests the match-up... okay, fine I guess. It feels disrespectful to the guys who have been quietly putting in good work for years at this point despite their records looking a bit saltier at times. Furthermore, it can be outright detrimental to the prospect by rushing them into a fight they're not ready for yet. I don't know about you, but I feel like Curtis Blaydes or the Aspinall we saw pre-injury could get off the couch and fuck Jailton up (I'm exaggerating, but only a bit). It would do Almeida well to get a bit more seasoning before engaging in those kinds of tests lest he end up like Aaron Pico. Hell, despite beating Burns, Khamzat took more damage against Burns in one fight than he did against an entire career's worth of opponents up to that point. Would another opponent or two in between have made any appreciable difference? Maybe, maybe not. Furthermore, even if the prospect
passes the test sometimes they still catch shit. Khamzat gets ragged on for "almost losing to a bloated Lightweight" while Alex Pereira gets talked about as some kind of paper champ because he "is got fast-tracked for the PPV points and is going to be exposed by the first decent grappler he fights".
Mind you, for the sake of clarity/disclosure, just as you're an old-school fan I am very much new-school lol. I came late to the sport and I try -- in vain -- to make the rankings neat and orderly and sensible while having every matchmaking decision be based purely on merit and standing in the division (strong bonus if it's stylistically interesting). It's how my brain is wired.