We know that if people have the right leverages they are better at certain exercises, just because they have less work to do. A person with shorter arms expends less energy to bench press a certain weight.
If someone has good leverages, would you say they ARE strong - because the good leverages simply make them strong? Taken to the extreme, dwarves can squat huge amount of weights with far less effort than normal, simply because they hardly have any distance to move their legs.
Is there a way to measure strength with leverages completely taken out of the equation? Like for biceps, a machine that attaches on your forearm a certain fixed distance from your elbow joint - thus disregarding the fact that some people have shorter forearms, and thus their biceps does less work in flexing the forearm?
Or a hip extension machine that attaches at a certain point on your femur, thus disregarding the fact that some people have shorter femurs and thus their glutes do less work in extending their hips?
Do you think that these machines would offer a truer test of raw strength than compound exercises dependent on leverages?