Stopping here. You're confused.
Funk doesn't fight defensively in hopes of a draw like you'll imply. He doesn't fight for ties. He receives them though against people from his era equally versed in going long.
Both men are offensive-minded. Both men can take a lot of punishment. But Funk can go for longer than Cena. He gets the eventual deciding fall. That's the ballgame.
But in Funk's time period, when he was defending the NWA championship, sudden death was not a factor. So long as Funk made the time limit with an equal amount of pinfalls, he'd leave the match with the title. He had an advantage over his challengers because he'd ultimately achieve his endgame of defending the title even if he tied. The same logic does not apply here, which means Funk would have to modify his strategy against an equally defensive opponent. You refer to him as a time-limit-draw machine, so you must be willing to admit his forte is getting draws as opposed to getting wins. Therefore, against an opponent the level of Cena, he'd need to change his core strategy, which isn't something Funk isn't capable of doing, but it is something that will have an effect on his normal fighting style in these kinds of matches.
With enough data, you can use metrics which are relevant in both eras against more modern metrics to determine the relationship between those variables among modern wrestlers. Using those relationships, an intelligent person would theoretically be able to forecast the success some older wrestlers would enjoy in a modern world.
There are a few caveats, but a creative person with enough time could play this game.
I'm not going down the rabbit hole though and you're not creative, so we've reached an impasse.
The key term is theoretically. We cannot be sure of how well these past wrestlers would adapt to the modern wrestling industry. Even after intensive study, the very best we can do is estimate, which is not enough substantial proof to use it in an argument of "These people would be more successful than Cena in this time period."
And there is more than a few caveats, think more a metric fuckton. That's the reason I'm not devoting the time to it, and besides, it would be moronic of the pair of us to argue over something that never happened.
You setting up Luger as a fall guy says you've missed my point yet again. Feel free to go back at your leisure. Going in circles is making me dizzy.
Luger is not a fall guy, he is just an example I have used to say that I would not exclusively vote for anything the WWF/E machine has produced to be the next big thing over the likes of Harley Race, Giant Baba and Terry Funk. There are very distinct differences between Luger and Cena, and why the former is generally seen as a failure as the top star, and the latter is seen as a great success.
You know what? I'm gonna back track.
If Randy Orton can get five falls over Cena in an hour, Funk should be able to get at least six.
John Cena has never worked an hour without taking a fall.
Terry Funk has. Frequently.
The answer is obvious: Funk runs wild on Cena.
So you're distancing yourself from your fact you admitted Cena has the same level of endurance as Funk?
I'd also like to bring up that Cena wrestled nearly an hour-long match against HBK in 2007 RAW, in a relatively negligible position, far more negligible than Funk's own title defences anyhow. Yes, he lost that match, but this was not a decisive match; this was feud enhancement, and did not effect the status quo. Michaels had everything to win in that match to further their feud, and Cena had nothing to lose considering he had already beaten Michaels decisively at Wrestlemania. In a decisive match between Terry Funk; Cena would have far more to fight for, and would be far more likely to be booked over Funk than the alternative.
I understand you want Funk to win, and you'll be voting him, but your argument for Funk is based off "what-ifs" and changing your stances to suit your position.
