Okay, here goes... this is where I start to upset the apple cart!
My choppers generally will have a 9" blade, distally tapered with a spine starting @ .25" or just slightly thicker, and the measurement .050" behind the edge will be .015-.020". The steels I prefer to use are considerably tough, and with a proper differential heat treatment I have excellent results and no deformation of the blade under torsional stresses.
My big fighters share similar traits, however the blades will have more pronounced distal taper, as well as a clip capable of being sharpened, and behind-the-edge measurements @ .015". The spine is VERY resilient to impact stresses, and the blade moves like a feather and will effortlessly pass through 1.5" thick grapevine (tough stuff, and lots of it in the forestry around here).
My previous designs were considerably thicker, but with new steels and better heat treatment practices, I found I could defy convention and really thin things up with no appreciable loss in strength while improving chopping and cutting capabilities immensely.
You're more than welcome to call bullshit on me, cuss at me, say I'm out of line, call me names, say my knives suck, etc. Or, perhaps, you might consider trying it yourself. Be advised, however, that there's more to it than just geometry, at this point. Steel selection and heat treat becomes far more critical. But I suppose that's what all this is supposed to be about, isn't it? Making a better mousetrap?
It's my intention to enter into the kitchen knife realm in the near future, and after speaking to someone that I deem is an expert in the world of chef cutlery I've concluded that the first blade I'll attempt will be a 9.5" long, distally tapered blade approx. .090" thick and ground to an edge @ .005" thick. Stay tuned...