Yesterday, I talked about the possibility of Nick Diaz taking on Johny Hendricks in lieu of the latter getting a shot at Georges St-Pierre and his Welterweight Championship. One thing that was brought up in the comments is the opinion that Hendricks should have to fight Diaz regardless, and I think this notion is a little silly for plenty of reasons.
For one, Diaz clearly lost to Carlos Condit. One of the reasons specified was the claim that Diaz should have beat Condit, which I disagree with. Diaz lost that fight because he doesn't fight smart, and displayed a total inability to adjust. He couldn't force Condit to get into a sloppy brawl, and he lost.
That's what we call a one trick pony (from a gameplan standpoint, not a skillset - that's why Diaz is so frustrating, he imposes limitations on himself). That being said, Hendricks has already made a great argument for a title shot.
In fact, I'm having trouble coming up with a better list of wins to earn a title shot. Jon Fitch, Josh Koscheck, Martin Kampmann and Mike Pierce might be the best resume for earning a title shot in a very long time in the UFC. Not only does Hendricks deserve a shot, he's got better wins than Diaz has over his whole career, thanks in part to a stint in Strikeforce fighting talent that the weakest of Hendricks' recent wins, Pierce, would probably beat.
The simple fact is that a Diaz vs. Hendricks fight would be fun, but the only way that it should happen is if the UFC decided to go for more spectacle than sport and officially book Anderson Silva vs. GSP. Otherwise, it's Hendricks all the way.