I'd agree it doesn't mean they were better, Jeremy. But they did define photography's genres. If you're a portrait and wedding photographer you have a single, well defined genre to deal with, so the masters don't matter, but if you're interested in photography as an art form they do matter. Studying people like Gene Smith doesn't mean you're going to copy Gene Smith, but you might learn that Gene did a kind of photography that strikes you as worthwhile.
Bottom line, Jeremy, I think the most important thing about studying others' work is that it helps you understand what's possible.
Jeremy, that's a nice, fiery sunset! So, do not be afraid to make that very point. Sunset haters may burn in there (hehe, not sure if my metaphors are too mixed or working at all). I tried my version, to the right of your OP:
... The purplish tint of the cloud in the centre top of your version looks a bit odd...
Given that you like your version best , I do not think there is much point in playing with it further.There is one technical remark I still want to make: there is a halo along ridge lines. That would typically be a result of too much global Clarity (or perhaps Photomatix artifact - I am not familiar with it though). The solution is to apply a narrow brush with negative Clarity along ridge lines.