Re:
Libertine Seguros said:
Also, just two wins at that level means a lot of people are "legends" that you mightn't otherwise consider.
For example, there are many people whose names are often omitted when we go through the big guns of cycling history, especially given that the big GT champions tend to be more well-known the further back into cycling history you go so unless they win multiple times, people who win a couple of the biggest one-day races are lost to time especially if they don't have anything specific that marks their legend (Simpson's and Monséré's premature deaths, for example). The less controlled nature of one-day racing perhaps figures into that, with the number of surprise winners of one day races massively outnumbering the number of true shock winners in the Grand Tours):
Georges Claes (2x Roubaix)
Prosper Depredomme (2x LBL)
Germain Derycke (you could argue that Derycke deserves a lot more credit in cycling history than he gets, having won San Remo, Roubaix, de Ronde and Liège as well as two World Championships podiums)
Noël Foré (1x Ronde, 1x Roubaix)
Emile Daems (1x Sanremo, 1x Roubaix, 1x Lombardia)
Jo de Roo (2x Lombardia, 1x Ronde)
Joseph Bruyère (2x Liège)
I agree with the main point of your argument. I think the misconception is that most of the young posters on this forum think it's engraved in marble that there's always been five races with the label "Monument". As a matter of fact, the label "Monument" is a recent neologism in cycling vocabulary and is a direct consequence of the UCI re-shuffle of the cycling calendar in 1989 with its abominable World Cup, demoting some single-day races such as the Walloon Arrow or Paris-Brussels while bombing ex nihilo races like the Wincanton Classics with the same status as Paris-Roubaix. Consequently everybody with a little bit of memory at that time would realise that the 5 classics currently labelled "Monument" were superior to the rest of the World Cup events while races like the Walloon Arrow or Paris-Brussels were no longer their equals. Though it might shock some of you, the Walloon Arrow prior to that UCI recast was at least an equivalent to its sister race Liège-Bastogne-Liège or even higher regarded depending on the period (in the fifties & the sixties), despite some panflat routes such as in 1981 (Pierre Chany called it "La Flèchette", "The Dart"). In 1948 the Desgrange-Colombo Challenge was founded (the forerunner to the World Tour) and the Arrow was right away a part of it. Liège-Bastogne-Liège however joined it only in 1951. Before 1951 Liège was a minor race. That's why your example or Prosper Depredomme isn't wisely chosen. He won it against a pretty local field, even the best Belgians didn't race it, even some of the best Walloons of the time. He won there a race that was within his reach but that was by no means the major classic that it later evolved into. Depredomme was just a good domestique on the international field, he was a gregario for Coppi who liked him because he accounted for a good sphere in the team and had a particular sense of humor. Also a race like Paris-Brussels, depending on the period could be much more coveted by the best riders of some given eras than let's say, the Tour of Flanders. Would you believe it? But go palmarès and you'll see, it's blatant.
All this to mean that it's pretty simplistic to claim that there are only a dozen races in the calendar that are worth winning, the rest being peanuts and pretty elitist too. Let's take the example of Franco Bitossi. Two major classics: two Tours of Lombardy. Yet he's up there as one of the greatest champion that the sport has ever had because he also won his share of Italian semis, of stage races and had his share of high places in classics and stage races and Italian semis, etc despite suffering from PVC. Because yes, all these semi-classics in those days, the greatest champions such as Felice Gimondi, Francesco Moser or Franco Bitossi would race like they all were World Championships in themselves. They never left anything away. It should have been a golden era for the smaller race organisers. And yes I also know that some of you would claim that only victories matter. This is of course absurd since every rider lose more than 66% of the races that they enter. If you wish to assess a rider's competitiveness you need to take high places into account. That's why Greg Van Avermaet is already a rider for the ages.
Also the idea that big GT champions are better known in the old days is only true for those who haven't studied that history into details because for the connoisseurs a rivalry between Henri Pélissier and Costante Girardengo in the classics has spoken a lot more to the next generations for several decades than the feats of Firmin Lambot or Léon Scieur on the Tour of France. At that time the best riders would avoid the Tour of France. Pélissier won it because he was challenged to but he hated it. Girardengo won the Tour of Italy but these were two of his victories which he was least famous for. His GP Wolber win (aka World Championship) was his greatest achievement.
It's true that Germain Derycke is not really well remembered. Some would say he had a lot of trouble with the clinic, even addiction (leading to his early death) but most of all he won the Arrow beside his four victories that are now labelled "Monuments" but this Arrow win (1954) was a mass bunch sprint on the Terrasse d'Avroy in Liège and he was declared winner after Ferdi Kübler's (RIP) disqualification for irregular sprint. Then his victory which he should have been best remembered for was his Liège-Bastogne victory in 1957 in extreme weather, snow storm, just like in 1980. Only in 1980 the French knew how to sell the Hinault victory (which was obviously a great achievement) while with regards to the 1957 edition they would refer to the extreme temperature but never refer to the winner. They would also praise the courage of Louison Bobet who was terribly in pain and still manage to finish top10 (Magne welcoming him at the hotel with the rest of the team said: "Gentlemen, stand up, here comes a champion" or something of the sort) but the winner, no. I know a man now in his seventies, with Ardennese roots, who was on the Côte de Wanne back then. He's not necessarily a cycling fanatics but he has clear memories of that day and of Germain Derycke reaching the top in the lead. Also what didn't help Derycke is that the 2nd on the line - Frans Schoubben - was oriented off route because of an official mistake if I'm not mistaken and was classified ex-aequo.
Jo De Roo is more or less remembered. He also won Bordeaux-Paris, Paris-Tours and was a fearsome sprinter. He's best known for winning the third Tour of Lombardy over the Sormano. The irony being that the infamous climb was meant to favour the climbers but in the three editions of the sixties it was twice won by massive "Flandrien"-type: Jo De Roo & Emile Daems. De Roo is also a winner of the Super Prestige Pernod, don't remember which year but perhaps the most surprising winner of its history.
Émile Daems won the first edition of Lombardy over the Sormano. Great Walloon rider. My father remembers him very well. The problem is that he had a very bad crash which hastened the end of his career, if I'm not mistaken. I have a biography of his, written by Claude Degauquier. Apparently he succeeded his post cycling reconversion very well: hotel owner.
Joseph Bruyère however was definitely a great talent, perhaps the best rider among those you mentioned. However he will also mainly be remembered as Merckx's best and most faithful lieutenant. His strengths would have enabled him to be a team leader in his own right but he did not have the mentality and the personality for that. His ego was close to zero. He would rather offer his service to a boss but he had exceptional strengths. In one of his Liège-Bastogne win he dropped Michel Pollentier in the Redoute, cleanly, fair & square. He did have talent. I had the chance to meet him at a cycling book market near Huy. I'm going back there this week (but he won't be there) and could witness how fondly he's remembered here.