The Rest Is Silents

Here's a nice tribute to the Silent Movie Theatre, which I used to attend regularly (back when they showed silent movies). But there's one part I don't get:

Anyway, the pièce de résistance of every laugh show was almost always the Laurel and Hardy film. Even though Hampton saved the best Chaplins for the laugh shows, the audience consensus was always that The Tramp couldn't hold the proverbial candle to Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy. And in a way, he couldn't...but it really wasn't a fair fight. Chaplin's shorts were all made in 1914-1918, whereas the Laurel and Hardy silents were from 1926-1929. The years in-between were critical ones in the development of movie comedy. Viewed side-by-side today, Stan and Ollie are so much more polished and in control — but if you saw a 1916 Chaplin — say, The Pawnshop — amidst other 1916 offerings, you'd see how Chaplin was far ahead of his contemporaries...and leading the way towards what Laurel and Hardy, among others, would soon achieve.

This is hard to believe. As much as I love Laurel and Hardy's silents, I'd still rate Chaplin's Mutuals--including The Pawnshop--higher. (On the other hand, I admit that Chaplin's earlier Essanays are much weaker, while L&H improved when they added sound.) I guess there was some sort of L&H revival in the 60s that had people so behind them they could take on all comers. It's sort of like when I attended the Theatre in the 90s, and Buster Keaton was the audience favorite, probably bigger than Chaplin.