Does anyone here prefer Rock Hudson to 60s-70s Paul Newman?

Absolutely not. 

Outside of his performance in Seconds, which is head and shoulders above any other performance he achieved in his career, I didn't find Hudson to be a particularly interesting or talented  actor. He was a servicable leading man type for studio pictures, but he was never really a great actor. Which is why his work in Seconds feels like such an outlier for him. Frankenheimer mined hidden depths from an actor whose screen persona always felt quite surface level and lacking in depth.

Newman was a consistently great actor and the 1960's were his peak. There is no comparison. 

I definitely am approaching this from a sentimental pov (but we're not talking nukes we're talking movies come on now )... maybe I *like* the characters he plays than the ones Newman played in that time (which are just broken) with the exception of Luke... I generally think being typecast known for one kind of role - nice guys really - is not very helpful in the long run (see: Tom Hanks, that's why The 'Burbs cracked me up it was different to see)... but his presence just "works" and beyond - in Sirk's frame at least. He's such a 10/10 asshat at the begining of Magnificent Obsession it's a miracle we not only buy his transformation by the last scene, but remember it forever.



Then there's the mentioned Seconds in which it's like he's not even acting he's living as that poor bastard.

That would be a no. It doesn't matter if you're talking talent, charisma, range, or presence, he's not seeing Newman in any category.