For example in Thriller Bark, Sanji recovered at the same time that Nami and Usopp did.
Oh yes, because Sanji was beaten exactly as badly as Nami and Usopp, and they totally don't have their own individual damage thresholds and rates of recovery.
You said you shouldn't underestimate people and go on to underestimate Gambia
Except I'm not underestimating him, I'm just not making assumptions like you are.
Not a while, just a couple hours at most
Luffy climbed a 4000m+ vertical cliff while carrying two people, then was taken care of, put to bed, and rested, all before Sanji woke up. That's a lot more than a couple hours.
No he wasn't just
Yes, he was. He went unconscious after defeating Hody, and didn't wake up until after the transfusion, which was some indeterminate period of time later, but long enough that things had calmed down significantly, so presumably, several hours. And you don't recall what happened with Kuma on Thriller Bark? That was all while Luffy was unconscious. Luffy woke up refreshed later, but that wasn't until after Kuma left, which means he didn't wake immediately, which means he slept it off.
Not being able to move is not the same as being unconscious.
Anyone who is incapacitated and doesn't have someone helping them is likely to pass out for a while and wake up later. How many times have we seen an injured Luffy or Zoro nap for a bit to recuperate?
and currently he is up and about moving around so this is another bad example.
Fine, whatever, I don't care enough about that point to argue, so stick to him in Alabasta.
That is a very short recovery time.
It's only been a few hours since Gambia was beaten by Maynard, and that's the time scale we're talking relative to.
Many is not all. In a logical argument it is more closely to using "some" then the absolute "all". This is arguing semantics but i never said all.
You're missing the point completely: you used "many" to make an argument about another, unrelated group. The only way the argument makes sense at all is if you are generalizing from many to all, and therefore concluding that this other group must also be that way. Whether you used the word "all" or not, it is implicit in your argument, unless you are claiming that your argument was a non sequitur.
The whole reason I started this is because you said point blank that he was still knocked out.
No, I didn't. Go re-read the thread, I never said that he is knocked out. Someone else claimed that; I never did. I got involved specifically because I don't think we have the information to have much of a view on whether he is or not.