I hole heartedly agree, and was inclined to not even mention 2h cav here. two things made me reconsider:
1: being highly effective when dehorsed,
2) that insane cataphrac/morningstar bashibazuk. kastamanulu iirc. he seems more effective than any lancer or 1h but reyiz out there atm, maybe due to his heavy load out, but he shows that its a viable option. if one can do it, many can.
Oh, 2h cav can be very, very effective, I'm not disputing that. Any cavalry can be, it's just the nature of the beast. Just look at Rohypnol and his xbow cav build. He regularly sits on the top of the scoreboard. For cavalry play, though, someone who's running a 2h build would generally be better off running a 1h build. Even with a morningstar, you're just as well off going with a shield, using it with 1h wpf, and taking the '2h as 1h' penalty, because at least you have a shield.
Can't deny 2h got style though
I think you ended your own debate. 2h cav is not inferior than 1h or lancer cav, because it can be better on the ground...when you are inevitably de-horsed.
Well, the 'best infantry class' debate can rage on, but I think whether or not a player chooses to go 2h cav has more to do with what weapons they like to use, not what's better.
I guess the best way to put it is this: You're never going to see a min-maxer or hard-cav player on 2h cav, unless they're horribly, horribly misinformed.