I know you hate McGregor, so I think you're biased no offense.
Yes I would easily say historical. What he did at FW was go 7-0 with 6 KOs. His only decision was when he tore his ACL and still beat Holloway, who was in his 5th UFC fight and obviously is good. I think the "green" narrative is a bit exaggerated but yes he was green to an extent.
Regardless, 7-0, 6 KOs, finished Mendes who was top tier at the time and knocked out Aldo in legitimately 6 seconds or something. Won the FW title. I'd call that one of the best runs in MMA ever, easily historic.
Then he became the first simultaneous double champ ever, and he beat Alvarez a very legit LW, an all-time great LW really, to do so. So that's the argument for McGregor. He's still no where close to top 5 all-time. He's probably somewhere between 13 and 20 depending on how he finishes his career and how subjectively high you rank him.
Was Khabib's run historic at LW? Clearly everyone would agree. He went 13-0 and honestly faced, arguably, lesser competition to do so. Never got a double champ. I think recency bias is/was hot on Khabib but top 5 all-time is certainly reasonable to argue for him. Main difference, title defenses of course. Undefated. But again, McGregor has competed up a division or really 1.5 divisions (Diaz, Cerrone) from his original, I think that is overlooked as well constantly.