He was the consensus best fighter in the division. Earned the shot with a win over a highly ranked opponent, and took the title with a win over the consensus top fighter in the division. There's no way anyone can reasonably claim that Sylvia had any claim on the HW title or any reason why he'd be treated any differently than any other No. 5-ranked fighter in a division. There's nothing magical about a belt. Mir also didn't have a record that indicated that he'd be in line for a title shot (granted he was a replacement, but that just highlights how few of the top HWs the UFC had at the time).
But he beat the guy who beat Bendo, who beat Edgar, who beat Penn. There's a lineage in there that no one could reasonably argue with. Pettis was the man at the time that RDA beat him. And RDA legitimately earned a title shot, with wins over a couple of contenders.
See, I'd argue that THIS is pedantry. There was no dispute about Penn being the champ (or Fedor). I'm actually saying, dispense with pedantry and let's admit what we all know to be true. I don't think you really think that Sylvia had a better claim to the HW belt than Fedor did, right?
Meh. I disagree. I picked guys who were around top 5 in their divisions at their best, just as Mir was. I think that they are actually both much better fighters relative to their divisions than he is.
Magny has more wins, fewer losses, more good wins, better average competition. Putting aside irrelevant belts, what's the argument for Mir being better? Qualitative assessment? I disagree.
The issue isn't specific to any individual. I just believe in ranking guys by their records (adjusted for opponent quality) and how they fight. I don't put much emphasis on what I regard as meaningless promotional belts.