Nah, I dont Tabbs and I'll tell you why.
If something aint broke, why bother to fix it. When SF II the World Warrior dropped in 1991, it was a game that completely revolutionised fighting games, and the character of Ryu is iconic as well as a bench mark for other fighting game heroes, whether its look, personality or move list. Because SF II World Warrior was so good, Capcom simply played around with the engine. What if they released SF III two years after WW instead of Champion Edition and it was garbage? They knew SF II was good, so they got as much out of it as they could.
MK I, as iconic as it was, is not THAT great a fighting game. MK II was a million times better and I loved it. MK III and UMK III were good, Midway proving that UMK3 could work, building on MK 3...but Mk 4 - 8 were total garbage in my opinion. I just think, if Midway did more with MK II and UMK3, they probably would have had more classics. There's a reason that MK 9 is basically MK 1,2 and 3 all rolled into one. They took the best characters from the best games (plus QC and Kenshi). QC and Kenshi are the only characters outside of the MK trilogy I like.
The thing with SF is that they are classic games. And yes, there are many versions of the same game, but each version is typically better because of content. I mean when they said "hey, there will be SF III released in 1999" the community went crazy, because it was announcing literally a completely new game. The best hype, is the kind that makes people wait. If you give people, too much, too soon, they get bored. This will happen with MW sooner or later. All I hear is "MW 3 is just MW 1 and 2". I mean the game isn't different in any way, and they have the gall to say its a sequel? At least with Street Fighter, you know what you are getting. The same, but improved in every aspect.
I don't see why Street Fighter can't be good without it being SF 20.