It's not even close.

It's like asking who's better today. The players of the former AFL or today's NFL.
I believe the only argument that can be made is that it is a handicap match based on the advancements that have been made over the decades. Wether through breeding practices, schooling, nutrition, general care, etc. "had they known what we know" type of argument. But they didn't know what we know.

Today's dogs are geared and bred around rules that were established in the 50's also. So whatever they were doing in the 1920's is probably a whole different ball game... I'm not that much of a historian to know how things went down 100 years ago. Our standards are really based around the rules of the game and the strategic angles the breeder takes to put his dogs in the win column while playing by those rules. If there were different rules back then, the dogs were probably different also. but going by Cajun rules, past vs present probably isn't even a real contest.