1-so? who said we're getting our ideas from CNN? or any other channel or media outlet? this is a strawman of his on the overarm camp-of which I am actually apathetic about.
I never made any such claim.

2-simply counting stuff makes no sense on it's own. you need a statistical qualifier to show that bias hasn't creeped into your sample (an issue I find likely with him). context also matters: how did the men fight when holding their spears a certain way? in a formation, or one on one? what dates were the pots from? are they regarding RL, or mythology?
One should ask why they were depicted underarm at all especially since I've been told now that most people would be familiar with hoplite combat and that underarm depictions are:

similar to depicting modern soldiers holding the gun the wrong way round.
shock? and they'd break anyways from the impact, so the hoplites would have soon turned to bladed weapons anyways.
Exactly, from what I have gathered the spears would quickly break and if they didn't then the close quarters would make it irrelevant. Why not ditch the spears and use swords exclusively.

you are assuming the Greeks were worth a crap as cavalrymen. outside of Thessaly and maybe Makedonia, they weren't. and the main battle line wouldn't have been able to pursue: heavily burdened in summer weather (the fighting season) and having already spent several minutes in heavy hand to hand fighting (or pushing), the winners likely had no stamina left. the losers would also be bushed, but they'd have dropped their heavy shields-a sign of disgrace as well BTW.
The lack of cavalry was what led me to believe that casulties were low in the first place. My point, was that if in such a tightly packed formation with people pushing into you from behind, routing would be unfeasable; the enemy could easily catch you, shield or no.

2-are you saying the ancient greeks were willing to castrate their brethren in combat? I wonder how that would fly in a Greek Trial.
And I'm the one posting a strawman? How you reached this conclusion based on what I said, I'll never know.

1-you are assuming that the overhand had to be held from the middle, reducing reach to 4 ft. what of the bronze counterweights, which we know were at the butt-end of the spear?
No, I have accepted that there were counterweights, and that it allowed you to hold it furthur from the centre. The reach of the spear is gone because you have no room to wield it properly.