For the sake of brevity, label these from left to right as A, B, C, and D. Then B is really the only choice that is even vaguely practical.

D is right out: cross guards existed so that if an opponent slid their sword down the blade, they wouldn't gravely injure the wielder and keep them from using their sword effectively. This grip not only lacks a cross guard but actually has a grip and sword shape that directs a blade to the hand.

A and C lack one important feature and have one important flaw. The important features is that they don't actually have a point to them. Swords had many different changes for many different purposes and fighting styles, but they all had points for the reason that you could always stab and opponent and do extremely significant damage essentially anywhere you stabbed. It's easy to hit a major artery or organ with such a motion. These two designs basically prevent that possibility entirely, so the point that it looks like they were made that way on purpose.

They also have a divide splitting the sword into two separate blades. An opponent, if skilled or particularly lucky, could slide their sword down this gap and wedge it in at the base. From here, they would have a good way to try and disarm their opponent by ripping the sword out of their hand, or just preventing them from using their sword all together. In both cases they're defenseless, and the opponent could use a side arm such as a dagger to go at the wielder without the wielder being able to do much except they have proper armor to defend against it.

B seems to be the best option, though it also looks to be a poorly-balanced sword meaning it would probably be tiring to actually hold. At least to my untrained eye it doesn't have any of the obvious flaws of the other 3 though.

I think they're all really good

Byond's Gangsta

For the sake of brevity

and then he goes on for four more paragraphs

Doohl wrote:

and then he goes on for four more paragraphs

Imagine how much longer it could have gone in for