A Terrible Fold, Or Was It?

Had this interesting hand at the micro limit Stud-8 tables.

After my raising or betting on every street, sixth street brings the following board.

Hero

Villain 1

Villain 2

I'm none too enamoured by those last three cards. In my mind, Villain 2 has clearly made a low, so I'm left fighting for half the pot against Villain 1, and if I'm not ahead, I'm drawing to four outs to make a boat.

Further bad news is there's a fair chance at least one of those outs is held by Villain 2.

Villain 1 must surely have had a drawing hand, to call so many bets. A straight looks almost certain - to my fearful eyes, anyway.

Even worse, Villain 2 surely has to raise any bet, as he is a definite for half the pot - and might even have made a low straight - making it impossible for me to passively call down.

So, when Villain 1 bets after I very weakly check, I can't see any option but folding, only to see these hands revealed after some river action.

Villain 1

Villain 2

Meh. How wrong could I be?

Villain 1 thinks the best way to play a big pair is passively. Villain 2 thinks calling on 5th street with a small pair and runner-runner straight/flush/low draws is a good move.

I'd disagree with both of them, but they got the cash. So, who played it best?

That's not a rhetorical question. Put in the same situation again, I'd still be inclined to fold to a raise unless I was fairly sure of seeing a cheap showdown, but I'm not 100% on that choice.

What I would change is I'd definitely fire another bullet on sixth street. If Villain 1 finds the guts to raise, so be it. I should have put the decision on him, not left the door open to a bet.

What I now know is to take more account of the relative standard of my opponents. There's a lot of passivity at these tables, and a lot of very ill thought out calls.

Perhaps there's a case for always seeing a showdown after playing big pairs fast, especially when they improve to 2-pair, unless the action clearly dictates otherwise.