Racial Weapon Imbalance, Manuever Limitations and the Issues of a Fast Mobile Fighter

So I had this character concept in my head, that of a unarmored, high movement, strength oriented fighter. In the process of seeing if this could be built I came across a few areas that concern me.

Racial Weapons make some weapons less preferable to others.
I was examining the fighter, and the differences between a dwarf, elven, and human fighter.

Heavy Armor Fighting (for 2-h reach, reduce the die roll)
dwarf - you have speed 25, are wearing heavy armor, and wielding either a Greataxe/Maul or a Warhammer/Shield, doing 1d12 or 2d6 damage
elven - speed 25 or 30, wielding either a longsword/shield or greatsword/greataxe/maul with a longbow
doing 1d10 or 1d12 damage
human - speed 25, wielding either a 1d8 weapon/shield or a 1d12 weapon, with most likely a +1 damage bonus from the extra stat bonus. statistically equivalent to 1d10/shield or ~2d6 weapon

now if you are going for defensive fighter, dwarf gives both the fighest survivability and the highest damage.
an elven fighter would probably end up as a long-range fighter, and the human is somewhere in between. The issue that I have is that it feels like the Greatsword has somewhat been left in the cold, as with some of the other weapons, like the maces. mathematically at least.

The other thing I was looking at was the manuevers. I liked the fact that there are rule alternatives for creating your own style. I also liked that the fighter said the "from the complete list". I'm not sure if this was a typo, as monk and rogue are both restricted to thier respective class lists. This does allow for the creation of a more monkish fighter.
I promply looked for manuever that enhanced manueverability. The list I got was
-Step of the Wind
-Tumbling Dodge
-Spring Attack *double take*

Now wait a minute, spring attack say that if you take a hustle action then you may roll a melee strike and use your expertise die as damage, with no bonus. Now then, what is the difference between a fighter with a sword/shield and a fighter with a greatsword using this manuever.......absolutely nothing.
This does not seem right to me.

The other issue, which it seems the developers have started looking at is the number of different things a fighter has to spend expertise dice on. If you add Deadly Strike and Parry to the list above, there are now a variety of things that a fighter must choose between.
-Damage (Deadly Strike)
-Movement (Step of the Wind)
-Dodging (Tumbling Dodge)
-Damage Reduction (Parry)
I'm seeing choice paralysis here at some point.

Then considering that I would like my fighter to be unarmored, generally for better mobility. The monk would probably be a better option. However, I'd like the character to be wielding a greatsword, which is not possible under the current rules. I'd also like him to be chaotic, not lawful, which means that the monk is out.

Due to this, I'm now considering the differences between the monk and the fighter.
Offensively the monk loses many weapon proficiecies, access to a number of manuevers, and the extra strike. In exchange the monk gains access to Ki powers and an Unarmed Strike bonus.

Defensively the monk loses armor use, but gains +wis to AC and skill focus in 2 movement based skills.

Now the Ki powers are definently unique to the monk, and I could see the lawful restriction on that, due to the amount of discipline required to harness life energy. I can't agree that the specialty of a mobile unarmored fighter required the lawful tendency. Now the barbarian will probably be a highly mobile combatant, but will also probably include raging. This still leaves no room for the a mobile but tactical fighter, which I could easily envision.
The best way I could see this being resolved would be to add in class variation (like pathfinder), but there are other ways to create an open system. My biggest desire is to see a system where there is enough openness built into the rules that DMs don't need to consistently house rule realistic but out-of-the-mold concepts.