They aren’t given “proper respect” as you term it because they weren’t that good, since you tried to compare Hall and Ambrose…Noted. Although my bigger point is that if Hall is clearly that damn good, and in my eyes, every bit a modern pace bowler, then why aren't all of him and his top seam bowling contemporaries given the proper respect for their accomplishments? It can't be just "technical reasons", for the reason that the very best of them had no issues with technique or athleticism.
Probably about 5% of cricket fans at most are going to be rewatching any black and white tapes of old cricketers. Hall was an intimidating fast bowler, because of his height and bounce, yes. He wasn’t that great and I think he is rated appropriately here. You’re obviously going to hear about him and others less in traditional media and from a casual cricket fan than any modern player, unless you find someone who played with/against him.
Trueman, Lindwall, Davidson and Miller are all ATG pacers from earlier or concurrent times as him and are all given their dues here. Perhaps they’re talked about less in the wider cricket community but that’s natural. Unless they have really outstanding records e.g Bradman, Barnes the media and fans in general will focus on modern players.
We have far more discussions here about top players in their discipline than others. How often has Jason Gillespie been discussed here recently? Probably about as much as Wes. Which is deserved.