It actually exist in some forms of far-east swordfighting techniques, and is well-known for western world short blades.
Still, it doesn't change fact that we don't have:
a) decent animations for it
b) sane specifications proposal
c) implementation at any stage of usefulness for Open
...which makes the point exactly as moot as it was at the start of this discussion.
As a swordsman, I find your suggestion of these techniques nonsensical. Ples source
Holding anything longer than 18" knife backwards would get you killed, even at that, you have more options open to you holding it normally. Ice pick grips exist solely for penetrating armor, and have no proper functionality in a fight.
Also, keep in mind, 'Far-East' is a very vague term.
People from the East had many retards that thought such things as sword whips and blade frisbees were a good idea. *Stares at Indian Rajputs*
Most Eastern 'arts' were more or less for show. There is also a great difference between dueling and actual warfare. Miyamoto Musashi was the most renowned, and possibly the best duelist from the Far-East (Vague again), yet he only fought other Japanese duelists, and never once suggested holding a sword backwards. As for warfare, most of these ideas and unique styles/weapons were absolutely useless. Katana? Mediocre sword, decent for dueling unarmored opponents, garbage for warfare. Kusarigama, Kanabo, etc. All of these things were pretty much useless in warfare. Only the Yari/Yumi proved any use.
The Westerners also had many retarded ideas, such as this one:
Is there artwork of a few idiots holding a sword backward? Yup. Does that make it practical? Nope.
The only practical reason to ever hold your sword backwards, is to finish someone off on the ground, if they have a lot of armor to get through, used to thrust through it. The better method of course would be to kick him down, move on, and let the man with the poleaxe/mace behind you finish him off.
So no, icepick gripping swords is utterly retarded and impractical.
Here are a couple videos of what proper swordsmanship looks like. By watching them, you'll begin to notice that reach, and quick unexpected strikes, rule the dueling scene. The reason for that, is because in these sparring matches, one good strike will give you the point. In a real battle, you'd of course have to get through armor/flesh/bone to do any real damage. This applies quite substantially to lightsabers, as a lightsaber would be a weightless weapon that requires almost no effort to penetrate armor/flesh. Also, if you held your 'saber' backwards, like an idiot, you'd be only utilizing one possible attack angle, restricting your reach, and your reflex parrying. So Ahsoka/Starkiller are really bad at using swords.
Now, if you had the reflexes of a magic space wizard, and could predict the future strikes of an opponent, your entire battle plan would be to parry their weapon out of the way, so you could safely dispatch them, without the risk of killing each other. Why parry? Because parrying is infinitely superior to taking all of that force into a static block, and praying that you're strong enough to stop his laser sword from slicing your face off. Parrying also allows you to respond with a riposte and dispatch them. Redirecting energy is far better than taking the brunt of it. Which is why Dooku is my favorite Lord, and why I feel as though Anakin/Luke are shit-tier swordsmen.