It probably boils down to the same thing, but for clarity, it might be better to phrase that argument as "a warrior character with high strength...", given that attributes are still more relevant than classes ever were to TES.
Their removal does destroy the comparison, though, as far as the ruleset's concerned - a skinny Altmer spellcaster can't be considered more or less physically powerful than a huge Nord axeman, save in whatever fixed (race-based) way encumbrance might be calculated.
In real world, if a person practises karate, will hit stronger with a sword than a person that have never practised karate or used a sword. Why should it be different in a video-game?
Yeah but he has to hit the enemy who is probably more skilled then he is. The enemy will win before the sword hits him plus Perks can easily replace strength.
Mmmm... I don't find that very convincing. If the character who masters X weapon atacks with Y weapon, he will make more damage because his training with X have made him stronger. A character that masters nor X neither Y, but is very good at Magic, won't make the same physical damage with Y than the character that masters X...
What a mess I have written...