And so the 5DII AF myth continues ......
Yes I know the 7D AF is better - but shocking is rather over dramatizing an AF that is accurate and still the (current) best in low light. It may have its limitations - but shocking - NO
I take a lot of pictures of animals which don't stay still for me or even pose with good backgrounds. So I just stick it on Servo, use the joystick for AF point control and away I go - relying of the blurred background to improve things. Shooting wide open on a moving subject means the AF has to be good as the DOF is very shallow, also I have to get a high percentage of keepers as the animals don't respond well to 'just another one please'
Aha! Well there's your issue, you're obviously just not large and scary and/or charming enough to make everything from animals, to children, to adults just freeze when you take a picture of them
Seriously though, I, too, have seen tons of one-off posts going on about AF that don't reflect either actual usage or basic scientific comparison and am growing a bit tired of them. I've not had much chance to use my 5DmkII and I find myself looking for something wrong in the AF compared to the 60D and know that deep down it's just because I've read it over and over again. Until I shoot with one body on each shoulder and alternate, I don't think that I should be making an even anecdotal comparison . . .
In the end, it comes back to who's using it and how they're using it. It can be (over) simplified to 'better" AF just improves your "luck" when it comes to catching a shot. If you know what you're doing (briansquibb's explanation above is one example) then you've reduced the necessity 'luck' part of the equation.
Just my opinion (except the scary/charming part, that's all fact
) -- worth no more than the price paid