Really? OK...let's nitpick
Sub-par would mean performance below the average SLR body at the time of the test. This is clearly incorrect so the 7D is not sub-par. (If you disagree, take it up with Merriam Webster.)
I'm not opposed to picking nits.
So because the 7D's AF is 'better than the average dSLR' it's not sub-par? If you think that, you should refer yourself
to Merriam Webster. In fact, 'par' isn't the average of every golfer out there, both great and crappy. It's an estimate of how well a first class
golfer should do on a given hole. Saying the 7D is not sub-par because it's got better AF than a Rebel is like saying every duffer out there could be playing on the PGA Tour. That's why golf has a handicapping system, and while I'm not saying the 7D is a 'bogey golfer' it does need a handicap to compete with the recent 1-series bodies and the 5DIII.
As for getting a shot, heck, you don't even need AF or a burst for that. Manually prefocusing, waiting for the action to be in focus, and a well-timed shutter press work today, just as they did with early film cameras. But the horse-and-buggy was once the state of the art mode of transportation - today's standards are higher.
The bottom line is that there are many people who believe the 7D's AF to be nearly perfect. It's not. Yes, it's better than a Rebel or a 5DII - much better. No, it's nowhere near as good as a 1DIV, 1D X, or 5DIII. From an objective standpoint, missing >25% of shots is adequate, certainly not excellent or even very good.
After shooting for a couple of years with a 7D and 5DII, one of the first things I noticed after getting my 1D X was that when culling images, I could no longer just delete a whole bunch of shots as OOF, a habit I developed with the other bodies. Since getting a new camera wouldn't have magically improved my technique, it's down to having better AF. Just sayin'.