Because they clearly don't want him to have a belt. Which is why they lie repeatedly. They said Burns vs Khamzat was a title eliminator. It wasn't. Then they said Kamaru vs Khamzat was a title eliminator. It wasn't.
Was that really said outright Burns vs Khamzat would be a title eliminator?
Can't find that when googling.
I've always figured they wanted to see Khamzat get one more win at WW, but then he failed to make weight against Diaz so it proved a good idea not to give him a WW title shot.
You're right about Khamzat vs Usman though, Dana was clear that was a title eliminator “The fact that these guys are taking this fight on short notice, (the winner) will get the next shot at the title barring injuries and other things that can possibly happen".
But then I guess "injuries and other things" DID happen.
Didn't Khamzat admitted to hurting his hand during the Usman fight.
And then Khamzat became "violently ill" before the booked Whittaker-bout in June, and it was rescheduled to July.
But yeah now that Khamzat crushed Whittaker it is weird that Khamzat still isn't getting a title shot and they're doing Strickland vs Dricus 2 especially after Dricus said he wants Khamzat since that would be a bigger and more interesting fight.
But that's possibly a VISA issue or timing yet again. Dricus said Khamzat was on the table and he requested that fight but UFC "couldn't make it happen" due to timing or something between them and Khamzat
Guessing it's a Visa issue with Australia, and the timing issue mentioned is that they wanna time a Saudi Arabia event for Khamzat's title fight
