I loved listening to Hudson and Landry in college. Laugh out loud funny. This particular sketch was probably their best known. Yet I don't find it that funny now. Chuckle-worthy, but not big.
Improv comedy is at a disadvantage when viewed later, especially 40 years later. Part of the humor is it's freshness, and the knowledge that the audience isn't being set up in any way, but are participants. Yet even with that caveat, this isn't as funny now as it was then. And its Winters, who was simply the best at improv, so we know that it's something about the passage of time, not the skill of the comedian, that drains the humor.
For years I thought it was just me, grumpier and jaded, unable to laugh as before. But tracking down vaudeville routines over the years, I wondered at how little they amused me. And this was supposed to be Vaudeville! The humor of legend. Not until I watch ancient clips from earliest vaudeville, from the turn of the previous century did the awareness dawn. This isn't funny. But people split their sides over it. The following would be from half a century later, the height of vaudeville, not only in its most developed stage, but one of its finest practitioners, and chosen among many possible routines to be recreated over a decade after. It's cute. It's okay.
But there is something very fragile about comedy, something that embeds it in the precise time that it was created that makes it funny. There are a hundred thousand tiny cues in the culture, and playing off them or on them is not something of calculation, but of intuition. Some of those tiny cues are unchanged a decade or a century later - others have morphed entirely.