It is true that categorical gen surg has a greater US Senior Applicant:Available Position ratio than rads and EM.
However, it is ridiculous to only use this parameter when describing a specialty's competitive nature.
For example, if you look at board scores and AOA, the typical applicant in gen surg is not anywhere near the level of academic performance that is seen in rads.
It may be difficult for an applicant who is average/below average in the pool of gen surg applicants to land a great residency spot. However, if you take that same applicant and stick him in the radiology applicant pool, he's more than likely going to struggle to get into the lower tier community programs. Conversely, an average radiology applicant (230+ Step I, 1/4 chance of AOA) is not going to struggle too much to land a pretty solid position in surgery.
Additionally, gen surg has a much higher contingent of non-US senior applicants that apply and match. I'm not going to be foolish and say anything about the inherent qualities of these applicants (and I believe that no-one can objectively). However, I think it is at least pretty clear that for better or for worse being an FMG/IMG nearly automatically puts you behind the game in terms of being competitive for any US residency spots. This also says something about the competitiveness of gen surg.
Comparing the two applicant pools for these specialties is like comparing apples and oranges. You can't just look at applicant
osition ratios.
All this crap being said, I suppose it doesn't really matter (other than for the time killing purposes of those who post on these boards). I know a bunch of bright folks that are going into peds, FP and IM. I know some who slacked pretty hard in med school but managed to snag spots in more competitive fields. And everyone wants to think that their specialty is more competitive than it probably is. Everything stated on here needs to be taken with a gigantic grain of salt.