Yugo, his 5th move (5... h5) was a "theoretical novelty". It has never been played by a master in my database. I strongly suspect that this is because your suggestion of 6. h4 is a strong and obvious response to a GM, not to mention that they have the option to ignore it altogether like I did (and hopefully defend more successfully). 6. h4 would be my normal response to h-pawn nonsense when I am fianchettoed, but I felt "disrespected" by this guy's spewy openings. My thought process was basically "**** you!" lol. Oops! This guy is hilarious... he played the wing gambit against my Sicilian last time and decided to thrown in a "king's gambit" for good measure when I put a pawn on e4. Excellent point about his attack being somewhat obvious and systematic. The tournament director at my other chess club (a USCF master) lectured me hardcore about allowing similar exchange sacrifices on h4 (h5 as black) earlier this year. I reluctantly agreed with him at the time, but my ego took over in this game lol.
TimM, I also looked at 6. h4 in my analysis after the game and agree that it looks quite good. Not only is it sound, but it also forces my opponent to play positional chess for a bit which is likely a weakness for a guy who spews in the opening like this lol. As you mention, this is a guy who will likely play for g5 which could ruin his position and allow me to thrash him in the center. This guy plays so wild that I think he would likely skip f3 and just play g5 as soon as it becomes humanly possible to do so. I also agree that cxd5 was a better option. I even should have made time to play it after I went for Nxh4... after all, the Rd8 kill shot was made possible due to leaving my pawn on c4. And then there's the whole "meet an attack on the wing with a campaign in the center" concept lol. I was pretty overwhelmed by the sheer number of possible continuations for White. I don't much like how I played c4 in response to ...h5 only to "cover up" and defend with my slow e3 and Nd2-f3 idea. It felt inconsistent even in game time. I also saw lines where I allow h3 and put my bishop on h1, but I had never played such a position before and wanted to stay in my "comfort zone" which obv failed since I got so confused.
All-in, that sucked pretty hard lol... I don't think I have ever had my king hunted across the board like that in a USCF-rated game. Most of my losses involve material loss in the middlegame based on a tactical error that is often the result of my own unsound combination.
So ya... defending is hard. I had noticed a pattern of surviving the first wave of an attack only to recklessly expose myself to a 2nd wave when I get pissed and lash out. I survived 2 waves this time before committing suicide, so hopefully this was a step in the right direction!
The senior players at my other chess club tell me "You're a tough player with a lot of good ideas, so why do you keep entering reckless complications when you are obviously strong enough to just grind people to death?" But then the kids tell me "You play like a wuss!"