That was very informative, thank you. So basically according to Dr. Sutterer, Gamboa and his people were correct in calling it a rupture.
Still.... I still have the same takeaways from the fight and injury as I did before.
Namely:

1. Regardless of whether it was a rupture or tear, the fact of the matter is that Gamboa sustained a significant injury to his Achilles and displayed major "cojones" in continuing to fight and last until the 12th round.

2. With all due respect to Dr. Sutterer and the entire medical field, I think it's confusing to call a tear a "partial rupture." To me, the word "rupture" immediately conjures up the vision of complete separation, regardless of the size of the gap.
The interchanging of the terms "partial tear" and "partial rupture" lend confusion to a condition that is pretty straightforward. Either the ligament is cut all the way through, or it's not.

3. So to me, it's likely that Gamboa suffered a partial tear of the Achilles. If he did in fact "rupture" his Achilles and yet continued to fight, he moves to 1st place in the Major Cojones category.