Let's play a game of MMA math that I call "Every win is worthless, every fighter's a chump".
The objective is to prove that a given fighter X is a chump, or at the very least not deserving of a title shot or other recognition. To do that, you must discredit X's wins. Fortunately, you have a lot of options to do that:
if an opponent is not clearly one of the top dogs, you may claim "he was never top 10", and hence the win is meaningless.
if the fight occurred early in the opponent's career, he was still green, and hence an easy victim. If it came late in his career, he was a washed up has-been.
if the opponent is a grappler and X a striker, claim that "X has never faced a good striker".
if X is a grappler and his opponent a striker, claim that "X was fed a striker with no ground game".
if a win was by judges decision, claim it was a "gift decision" or a "BS decision".
if none of these clauses apply, dig for other causes: "Y was injured"; "Y just had 2 losses in a row and was insecure"; "Y was on a win streak and overconfident." "Y was overrated anyway, as shown by his loss to X, who is after all a chump".
After all that, no more than two or three victories should remain. Discard all that are more than four years ago - that's ancient history and doesn't mean a thing. And one notable victory doesn't make a good fighter, does it?
It also helps to overplay Xs losses, especially to guys who you can easily show to be chumps.
For warmup, you can try to prove that the following guys were all chumps:
If you're on a roll, you can tackle
George St. Pierre