If you think that you will magically be able to lift a given amount of weight in a particular lift at a given bodyweight you are kidding yourself. Same if you think lifting a given weight means you will weigh a certain amount. Strength comes from muscle mass, fibre type, CNS and in all likelihood a host of other factors. There are some tiny fuckers out there who lift massive weight.
There is a clear correlation between bodymass and strength. A bigger muscle is a stronger muscle, a muscle enlarges in order to compensate for increased workload.
I am not saying that X lifter will be able to lift Y weight (though if you look at most lifting stats they give you a ballpark figure) rather that if a person increases their bench, deadlift and squat and are eatting to sustain this they will notice an increase in bodyweight. Yes it is that simple.
We're not talking genetic anomolies, such as bodybuilders drugged to the teeth who only lift RESPECTABLE weights or olympic lifts who restrict their calories in order to stay within a certain weightclass, but for the 99% of the population.
Simple fact is this: properly performed, full range-of-motion barbell exercises are essentually the functional expression of human skeletal and muscular anatomy under a load.
If you want to focus on compounds at the expense of all else then that is fine and it won't necessarily lead you wrong. But it is a very narrow view.
In the macrocycle there might be muscular imbalances, but as long as they are dealt with when they occur I do not see why your routine should not revolve around the compounds (squats, deadlifts or power cleans, rows, pull ups, dips, bench press and overhead press).
There are 3 muscle heads on the shoulders, chest and triceps, two on the forearms (I could continue like this for a while) you simply cannot hit every muscle head without employing an ineffective routine, let alone be able to work your whole body x3 a week. Why not focus on the basics and solve issues like imbalances when they occur?
