The other fairly critical line (though less critical than 5...Bb4) is 5...d6 6.Bc4 Nf6, when play can continue 7.Qb3 Qd7 8.Ng5 Ne5 9.Bb5 c6 10.f4 Neg4 (or 10...cxb5 11.fxe5 dxe5 12.Be3 a5! 13.0-0 a4! 14.Qxb5 with complicated and roughly equal play, 10...h6 is relatively unexplored) and there are well-analysed complications stemming from 11.h3 cxb5 12.hxg4, and 11.Be2 h6 12.Nf3 d5 13.h3 dxe4 14.Ng1, where it's Black who sacrifices a piece for compensation.  Black should probably avoid 10...Ng6 11.e5 h6 12.exf6 hxg5 13.0-0, which gives White a very strong attack.   White can deviate with 7.Ng5 Ne5 8.Bb3 h6 9.f4, which is also complicated and roughly equal.

After 5.Bc4 cxb2 6.Bxb2, perhaps most critical is 6...Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nf6.  I posted some analysis which aimed to revive the relatively unexplored 8.0-0 in another recent thread, while 8.Qc2 d6 9.0-0-0 0-0 10.e5 Ng4 11.h4 Ncxe5 is dangerous for Black OTB, but theoretically it's White who is coming up short.  

The other critical line is 6...d6, analysed in detail by John Watson in his review of Danish Dynamite:
http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/john-watson-reviews/danish-dynamite

My preference has always been 7.Qb3, as I agree with his opinion of 7.Nc3 Be7 8.Qb3 Nh6 9.Nd5 0-0, and while I'm not convinced that Black is better in the line 7.0-0 Be6 8.Bxe6 fxe6 9.Qb3 Qd7 10.Ng5 Nd8 11.f4 Nf6 12.Nd2 Be7 13.e5 dxe5 14.fxe5 Nd5, it's also not clear if White's compensation is quite worth the two pawns.  

In the 7.Qb3 line 7...Be6!? is interesting, as someone pointed out in another thread, as it's unclear if White has anything better than to transpose back to the 7.0-0 line after 8.Bxe6 fxe6 with 9.0-0 (9.Nc3 and 9.Nbd2 are also interesting, but 9.Qxb7 and 9.Qxe6+ Qe7 10.Qf5 slow down White's initiative too much).  Black's main response is 7...Qd7 8.Bc3 (8.Ng5 Nh6 9.Bc3 is also interesting) 8...Nh6, when while I think Watson's analysis is impressive, I'm not convinced that Black stands better (e.g. 10.Na3 is interesting, and I think White still has play in his line 9...f6 10.Nbd2 Nce5 11.Nxe5 Nxe5 12.Be2 Qf7).  Similarly, I'm not convinced that Black stands clearly better after 7...Nh6 8.Bc3 (8.Na3 may be a better bet, it seemed to me that ...b5 in Watson's lines could be met by the risky Nxb5) 8...Qe7 9.0-0 Ng4 10.Nbd2 Nge5 11.Bd5 Nd8 12.Nc4.

It is from 1994 I will post a little of the analysis they did, but it seems like they have a point in that if black does not play Bb4.............they list Bc5 and d6 as the major alternatives he can run into a bit of trouble.

Thanks alot guys the Smith book covers most of these lines and says that the reason play 5. Bc4 is to avoid the lines you just showed as good for black.  The lines seem very natural as well and someone playing the line might find them for themselves.  In your experiences have you met Bb4 alot after the Knight capture.  The smith book says after anything besides Bb4 white has good pressure and comp for the pawn.

I agree with much of MNb's analysis there, though I think in the 5.Nxc3 Bb4 6.Bc4 d6 line, 7.Qb3 is almost certainly a better move-order than 7.0-0, as after 7.0-0 Bxc3 8.bxc3 Nf6 White cannot access the 10.Bg5 possibility that arises after 7.Qb3 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Qe7 9.0-0 Nf6 (if nothing else at least White has two main possibilities instead of one).

The reason why Black should probably prefer 6...d6 to 6...Bxc3+ is the line 7.bxc3 Nf6 8.Ng5, transposing to 6...d6 7.Ng5 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 (in that line 7...Nh6 is more critical as MNb gave above).  6.Bg5!? is interesting, though I have little experience with it.

Danish Dynamite is indeed missing the Danish with "4.Bc4 others".  It is also missing the Goring Gambit with 4.c3 d5 5. "others", e.g. I have had some success with the offbeat 5.Bd3, although MNb's recent suggestion 5.exd5 Qxd5 6.cxd4 Bg4 7.Nc3 Bb4 8.Be3 (instead of 8.Be2 Bxf3 9.Bxf3 Qc4) is probably a more reliable way of avoiding Capablanca's ending (and also not mentioned in Danish Dynamite, they mention 8.a3 which is more dubious in my opinion).

In the ...Bc5 line Danish Dynamite was dismissive of 7.0-0 "?!" Nf6 8.Bg5 Bg4 9.Nd5 Ne5 "=+" (here 10.Be2 suffices for decent compensation), and 8...h6 9.Bxf6 (9.Bh4!? wasn't mentioned) 9...Qxf6 10.Nd5 Qd8 11.b4 Bb6 when they gave 12.a4 Bg4 "=+", but White has some improvements in that line.  Ironically, they gave this line elsewhere in the book via transposition and assessed it as giving White good compensation (it seems to be a common issue in these opening encyclopedias, assessing the same positions differently in two different places).  Thus they recommended 7.Bg5 immediately, but after 7...Nf6 I doubt that White has anything better than to transpose back to the previous line with 8.0-0, while 7...Nge7 8.Nd5 h6 is an awkward line.

Despite the theoretical issues the Goring Gambit has served me very well in OTB play, both serious and casual, and when I've lost games with it, it hasn't been due to the opening phase of the game (though I generally prefer to offer the second pawn with 5.Bc4).

I am looking for the older style Goring lines like this.
1.e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. d4 ed
4. c3 dc
5. Nc3      

Is that covered in the Danish Dynamite?

I recently picked up the Ken Smith book on the goring and was wondering if it is worth the read and how the opening is doing in modern tournament.  I would definetly be interested in playing it because my usual kings gambit has been getting spanked around a bit lately.  Any feedback or new resources would be appreciated.  As always trying to get better.