Why should Black reply to White weakening his king by....weakening his own king?? This is the logic behind these g5 moves (also 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5?!) and doesn't make sense to me.

@hessmaster: That does look like trouble.... After 3...fxg6 4.Nf3, it's hard to see how black deals with the impending threats to the weakie on g6, not mention his discombobulated kingside. But I usually played 2...e5. I guess maybe Hobbs, whoever he was, had some better ideas.......

f4 g5 fxg5 e5 d4? good for white...

after 6 Nh4 i like Black with Be7

I was curious about the move 6...Be6. After 7.Bg2 c6 8.d4 (or Nc3) Be7 is a problem for white. And if 7.d4, black has 7...Nc6 threatening the cheap shot Nxd4 followed by Bxg3+. White might be fine after 8.c3, but maybe not.........?!   Also, Powerlevel_9001, you used the word "indepthly" in one of the comments on your analysis. Is there really such a word....? Come on!   Indepthly?!

white should be ok!!

should be ok for white!!  hehehe

are these like ... the modern main lines

i played the From a few times and never ended up in such deadpan subvariations

I've only ever played one From Gambit i serious competion, about 25 years ago my opponent was around 17-1800:

Really the main purpose of From's gambit is to take control of whites weakend a8-h1 diagonal and to gain development and central control.

e4 was not a good move.

but one wrong move and he loses