McGregor like Morphy or Andersson?

Anderssen*

Anyone think that the big boxing match lately is kind of relateable to chess? 

* Attacking flair and heart vs a lot of faith in defence and patience.

* Tries to come swinging hard out of the opening, but risks loses steam later and getting screwed vs calm and calculating, knowing and having faith in your position being better.  

* Taking up the game and pure talent vs studying decades of old masters since childhood.  

To me McGregor is a bit like one of the old attacking "romantic" swashbuckling chess players, shooting from the hip. McGregor claimed yesterday to be a "student of martial arts", but that kind of suggests that boxers aren't as much, which I think it a bit unfair.  

If you watch boxing documentaries the art of boxing has been evolving for many decades, they always talk about how they learned from their forebearers, just like chess. That's not all just bs. I even saw one former professional boxer claim that they were like "professors" before the fight, basically it was all calculated and would be against the laws of physics for McGregor to win. 

Meanwhile Mayweather was more like Karpov or Petrosian... but more like any modern player with proper defence. He calmly absorbed all McGregor threw at him then went in for the kill.  

morphy is nothing like mcgregor. Morphy games may look dicey but he is always in control, and always calculating perfectly. once he gets his attack going he played the computer correct move 98% of the time, literally. he would start the game a rook down just to make it more interesting for himself. all in all he had a score of +186. he also never played seriously or for money. no formal training, becomes worlds greatest, and reitires, all in 3 years with 0.0000000 formal training, then just goes about the rest of his life. Morphy didnt even try to be great he just was. and he also played versus 1200-1800 strength players almost exclusively but still got to gm level himself. honestly what do you think is similar to morphy?

whereas mcgregor is like judit polgar, attacking recklessly, though still damned great at it. morphy never had risky games.

 I have it on good authority that Conor McGregor will challenge Garry Kasparov to a classical chess game. He's going to trash-talk Garry and state that he'll checkmate him in the opening. After losing, his fans will be proud that he sticked for 25 moves against one of the GOAT, while he's an amateur, and talk-down to Kasparov for not winning in less moves.  xD

We never know how much Morphy studied, while it is true that he was a prodigy, it is also true he had several chess books and had read them which proves he did in fact study contrary to your claim. And most of his moves weren't the most accurate according to computers like you claim, the CAPS score gives Morphy just a 95.67 with every World Champion having a higher score than Morphy with the exception of Steinitz. That according to CAPS gives him a rating of 2400ish, which in itself isn't GM level. And Morphy's opponents weren't 1200-1800s, his best opposition would be likely be the equivalent of experts-NMs while Morphy himself was somewhere between a strong FM and an IM strength. 

Anyways, McGregor and Mayweather are in different sports, your analogy involves the same game, chess. McGregor isn't anything like Morphy however, McGregor got brutally destroyed by Floyd, something that didn't happen to Morphy.