"Classically unattractive" doesn't exist. That's a varying social construct.
Of course it does. Physical attraction is affected by a great number of factors, many of which are biological in nature, so dismissing it all as "a social construct" is not very accurate. How attractive we rate someone's face as being
is influenced by culture, but it is also influenced by evolved human preferences for certain features; mainly, being symmetrical and in proportion, among other things. This makes a lot of sense evolutionarily as these details seem to indicate biologically desirable traits such as health, youth, fertility and good genes.
So what does this mean for our guy? Well, his eyes are too small, and they're too close together. Plus, his eyebrows are not arched enough. His lips are too small. His face height-to-width ratio is actually quite good, but his chin is not defined enough (the beard is not helping him here). And where even are his cheekbones? All of this is indicative of a fairly ugly face, so I'm confident that the majority of people would not rate him as being particularly desirable.
And that's what classically unattractive means.
...
God I hope that guy doesn't read this forum.