Think about how humans operate in large groups. While they're forming blue ribbon panels and a search committee to choose a leader, the gorilla is going to be eliminating the alpha males who are dumb, brave, or drunk enough to attack first. After that, everybody else is going to run. What humans need most of all to have any chance of winning is a reason to hate the gorilla.
Real men lay down on the wire so their brothers can crawl over them to fight a gorilla. That's the beauty of questions like these. By definition it attracts the full spectrum of answers and pulls bias out of people for absolutely no payoff. In the end it would be 100 terrified men rushing a terrified gorilla. Any answer beyond that is injecting narrative into an absurd hypothetical. "Men aren't men anymore. Back in my day 50 men could take down a gorilla. Not the men these days. Not even with 1000 men. "Sir, this is a Wendy's."
Nobody is saying it has to be a fair fight. Get 3 men in close to throw sand, dirt, pollen etc in the gorilla's face. If any of the men are taken out, keep sending more in to do the same until until gorilla can't see anymore. Now send in your talllest and badest martial experts to kick him continuously. Maybe there is chance the blind gorilla is defeated.
See what I mean? It's a hypothetical about how hard it would be to defeat a gorilla bare handed and you made it into...that. Love it. It's like asking whether a dog or a bobcat could win and you unload something deep inside you about chihuahuas.