Better Actor : Gene Hackman or Paul Newman?

I'm more into the 80s generation of actors than the 70s. Douglas (Michael), Hoskins, Hurt (William), Phoenix (River) and maybe Rourke (up til Barfly).   I can go on and on about those guys, and probably much fewer people share my feelings.

The 50s-70s method guys are always the ones singled out as distinct. It's always the same 7 or 8 guys mentioned to hold a certain platitude over the others. But I disagree. Outside of Pacino and DeNiro, none of them make me go "WOW. that's a clear GOAT." But here, I pick Newman. Hackman is intense, no doubt about it, and he's just about the most tight-fisted gruff dude there is, and I think he's a really good actor, but I think Newman was more sure of what he's doing, had a sort of intangible flair, and he's just the guy I remember better overall. I think James Dean is too 50s, he had one expression..... the squirmed up face. Newman advanced the precedent that Dean set by tenfold. So yeah, Dean is overrated. As is Brando. 

I just checked that list. Is Jack Lemmon in the top 10? Man, that's whack. He was highly watchable, but he feels so light compared to the other names on the list, and he's stuck to that loser-38-year-old-who-can't-get-the-girl character. Not everyone relates to that, just... meh.

More comparable when you look at both of their best work, but if you get off the beaten path at all, Hackman takes it with ease.

I love both, Hackman is my favorite American actor but just to balance it out Newman does have the higher highs and his performances are so iconic. What's great about Newman was how he was able to become even effortless and better as he got older. I do think Gene was a bit more versatile (for me better in comedies and character actor parts in addition to being a leading man).

Towards the end of both their careers they still blessed us with masterful performances, Road to Perdition and The Royal Tenenbaums.