Interesting question. Which type of wins should be considered a bigger achievement.

[Tom Cruise]

I think each should be judged fight by fight... I try to judge a fighters win on what I thought would happen before the fight.

So for me the Haye win was more impressive than Adamek because I gave Haye more of a chance vs Wlad than Adamek vs Vitali.

Similarly i still rate pac versus De La Hoya as a good win because before the fight I thought it was madness him even taking it. Same with Hopkins Trinidad (trinidad was favourite). Even though after the event people saw that Hoya was drained and trinidad was perhaps too small for Hopkins.

Resume vs talent i think is a judgement call, you need to ask yourself if a fighter who has looked good has faced tough enough opposition to warrant the hype.

[Capaedia]

As long as both are in their prime, the win over the more proven guy is worth more in my book.

I agree.

I have highlighted the part I think is most important.

[gmc_rfc_06]

I get what you are saying..
Fair enough.

So ok better win?

David Haye or Thomaz Adamek. Both were in their primes or close to it. The difference is Adamek got a superior record+resume compare to Haye.
But Haye is perceived to be the far superior h2h fighter with more talent and abilities.

Haye had/has a better resume than Adamek as well as being more talented. He beat better opponents, claimed all the belts at cruiserweight and then won a belt at heavy.

Just watch though, if Martinez fights and beats GGG soon before GGG beats a top opponent, GGG will be the next to be called the 'hypejob' - it's todays boxing fans.