The C16 irons are similar to what you are describing. Also, although not as extreme as you are describing a set of Tmbs are about as game improvement as a blade can be.

Mike, thanks for the reply.

THE "problem" with the C16's is the price - $375 - $415 per club. I have seen the TMB's and they are still fairly compact with nothing approaching GI offsets.

rymail00 makes the very good point that a larger, true blade would be too heavy. I don't know but aren't there alloys that could fill the bill?

Perhaps the answer is to "hide" the technology, having a club with the appearance of a blade but with the playability of a game improvement club. Let's not forget the thinner toplines, too, that better players and wannabes like me crave.

Hollow, more or less, would permit a blade looking club but with a longer heel-to-toe to provide forgiveness with GI offsets.

Here is my favorite from a bygone era - the Walter Hagen (Wilson) Ultradyne II iron; yes, they were hollow. The major problem with these clubs was IMO that they had reverse progressive offset - more offset in the short irons and less offset in the short irons. On the other hand, a "player" could really work the ball in either direction throughout the set.

My second favorite - the original Taylor Made Burner Midsize irons.

It can and has been done before. The blade-like looks of these may be a fiction of appearance but I think there could be a very big market for these again.

Any thoughts? I think the aesthetics with the GI features would go over big time.

I never thought of that. Offset, cavity back, and larger head have always been the "game improvement" club to help the higher handicapper. Blades, ala Justin Thomas, have always been a pure club that a player could "feel" and also shape shots easier.

But, to answer your question, a blade will give much better feel and feedback, but with an offset and bigger head, should be more forgiving.

Well I believe that's why they have GI and blades. Blades are designed to have ultimate control over trajectory, shot shape, and spin. On the other hand, the AP1's are forgiving, launch high, and spin considerably less than a MB due to it's design. Also having a large headed offset head the size of an AP1 would be like swinging a brick. Blades are typically a single piece forged or cast steel in a very small head, so to reproduce that same size design in an AP1 head size would be extremely heavy.

That's why AP'2, CB's and the like are so popular. Because you can have a smaller head shape and size, but a decent amount forgivness and workability, best of both worlds. I'm sure if a company could actually produce a large headed, real full blade that performed like an AP1 it would have been made, but those 2 styles are so opposite it can't be done without sacrificing one way or the other.

interesting thought sound like something of golf dreams