This is why I keep saying that you don't understand 4e's mechanics and combe resolution system.
Not all tough creatures in 4e have many hp. For instance, the PCs in my game have fought hobgolbins - undoubtedly skilled warriors - who had 1 hp. They have fought devils from the depth of the hells who had 1 hp.
Yes, and IMO that's an outright glaring error in how 4e handles these things.
4e uses many mechanical devices to present a creature as tough: hit points; Fortitude defence; various special abilities; and most of all level.
Put another way, it dredges up the old glass-cannon monster design issue from 1e and dials it up to 11. Why in the name of sweet bejeebers would a designer take a known problem and intentionally make it worse?
This is just nuts - you're now saying that 4e is inconsistent and mistaken because it uses a different combat resolution framework from the one that you're used to!
Absolutely bizarre.
Not bizarre at all. I'm saying it's mkstaken because to make that system work one has to make a conscious decision to throw out internal consistency when it comes to creatures within the setting; and given as there's systems out there which work perfectly well without forcing this decision, it boggles the mind that someone would design a system that requires it.
One thing that defines a creature is its [toughness/resilience/resistance to wounds/however you want to phrase it], shown in the fiction by how much physical harm or abuse a creature can withstand and still be functional and shown at the table by hit points. Hit points are a constant in the moment*, in that if a creature has 60 hit points here it has 60 hit points there and everywhere else, no matter its situation or who/what it's dealing with.
* - though they can, of course, change over time e.g. as an adventurer gains (or loses!) levels or a monster goes from child to adult.
Now true, sometimes against really powerful foes those 60 h.p. won't provide much of a buffer - but almost without exception they'll provide more of a buffer than just 1 h.p. will.
Defend it as you will, there's no getting around that when put under the light of internal setting consistency it's a poor and badly-designed mechanic particularly when applied to creatures that by their very nature should be resiloient enough to withstand a hit or two from almost anything.
As a pure game-play mechanic I'm sure it works great - but it's just that, an unnecessary game play mechanic that does nothing except remind players that this is nothing more than a game.