I think the point with blunt was just that them being blunt doesn't itself manifest any particular abilities (and why would it, reality is not a video game where "blunt" is a magical property), just that such weapons had different design and weight+balancing, which facilitated better crushing through an armor.
Which I mean, he explains with how the actual relevant part is concentration of force and more energy on the impact site, no?
Even that medieval war hammer has a pointed tip on the more hammer-y side.
The point of saying all this though is dubious; I think we largely understand such things, and it's just being shorthanded or mentally waved away to "blunt damage", and Honved's post was a good expansion on it. Though I guess I am unsure what Akka's original post was trying to do - I felt it was just a response to a specific comment, not like trying to convince anybody that maces or polearms etc weren't superior to swords in beating up knight-nerds.