Garaki was likely talking about Prime All Might. Endeavor and Aizawa stated Shigaraki was equal to All Might. Izuku and Gran Torino offered no objections. Aizawa accurately guessed the strength of the USJ Nomu equally All Might's. Endeavor also accurately guessed that Izuku's 100% was comparable to All Might.
That happened during the Sports Festival. Endeavor saw Izuku flick his fingers to escape Shinso's brainwashing and already noted Izuku's strength. (Thinking about it. That also means Endeavor was admitting Izuku's full power was stronger than himself.)
We know Garaki was likely talking about Prime All Might because all of the other evidence points towards Shigaraki being equal to Weakened All Might.
Garaki NEVER stated Tomura isn't on par with Weakened All Might. He just said All Might in general. You cannot claim he means Weakened All Might without more proof. However, we have proof that Shigaraki is on par with Weakened All Might. You just ignored it.
Ultra Analysis High-End's Strength: "
The highest class of Nomu, with more powerful abilities than any other so far." (Literally Word of God stating Hood > USJ Nomu.)
Horikoshi literally wrote that Hood is more powerful than any other Nomu up to that point. You just ignored it. If the USJ Nomu was an outlier, he would've said it there. Instead, he says Hood has more powerful abilities than any other so far. All previous Nomu are weaker.
You claim the USJ Nomu is the only Nomu who reached Weakened All Might's level, but you've provided no proof.
You provide no scans from the manga that says the USJ Nomu is an outlier among the Upper-Tier Nomu.
You've offered no counter to Garaki stating that the High-Ends are more powerful than the Upper-Tier Nomu, while we're shown a picture of the USJ Nomu.
If you want to make anyone change their opinion. You need to provide factual evidence from the manga that claims the USJ Nomu is stronger than the High-Ends and is an outlier among the Upper-Tier Nomu. You've not provided this. The Burden of Proof falls on you.
This thread has been debunked until the OP can actually provide evidence that counters the evidence I've shown.