UFC is just the promoter. As long as DREAM audiences are still bigger in terms of live and TV audience, Saitama will continue to be the mecca, and the biggest stage in MMA.

It sounds like you’re looking through everything with the UFC lens. Do we really need a ton of hype, a “story”, and a certain label for a fight to be great now? Obviously I’m not talking about looking at fights in a vacuum; I mentioned two WEC title fights, and both of the Alvarez fights were undoubtedly more exciting because they were big fights in the division in the middle of a world championship tournament. But putting one over the other in terms of importance doesn’t really mean much, DREAM and UFC are equally valid as far as this conversation goes. The hype and storylines take a back seat when the bell goes, and I’d say they make a very small percentage of the overall picture. Rampage vs. Forrest was a very good fight; Alvarez vs. Hansen was an extraordinary fight.

Except judging the quality a fight is completely subjective.

Not entirely true. Consider the following propositions, which most people will agree on: “Swick/Burkman was a bad fight” and “Fedor/Cro Cop was a good fight.” If quality is subjective, these are indefensible propositions, and one could legitimately claim that “Swick/Burkman is better than Fedor/Cro Cop”. Since that’s clearly not the case, how can quality be subjective if people assert objective facts, thus implying an absolute value system?

Liking a fight is independent to its quality (cf "camp"). Starnes/Quarry has achieved a humorous notoriety for how inexplicably bizarre it was even though it was terrible. Same goes for anything needing a value judgment. Andrei Rublev is one of the most laborious movies I’ve seen, yet it was a masterwork of filmmaking (the casting of the bell was awe-inspiring)

I never stipulated that A = hype, else, you’re right, it’s not rigorous logic.

My point is that people praise QJ/FG for the hype, yet other similarly-hyped fights that eventually disappointed are held in contempt. If hype was a positive factor, that would figure into people’s evaluations of those fights (DS/KS2 and AA/Tim3), but it hasn’t. Therefore, I contend that hype is irrelevant when evaluating fights.

Hype was the same. The fights were different. What accounts for the difference in historical standing? The similarities or the differences?