>>33569707Then don't write all of it. There's too much, and only the important stuff is important. Moreover, remember that the readers will likely be able to associate better with the spectators than with your fighters proper during the fight.
Don't portray each and every "step" of the battle. Unless you are introducing specific mechanics, your readers will be able to trace a number of steps ahead of attack performed like what they have seen before. Compress turns and time by using language that carries by itself the implication of passing time ("X carried on trying to tank the Flamethroewers") or of a progressing event ("X moved more sluggishly as the poison took its toll").
If your battles have an in-universe audience, they are almost the perfect narrative tools. They will be commentating on the battle, and they will be using dialogue, slang, body language and mass responses ("boo", "the wave") to compress and shortcut your battle. A spectator wincing and mentioning that the Absol just pulled a Tyson on the opponent Cinccino says more about the state and mood of the battle than what you will be able in a full paragraph of action and description if using an impersonal narrator.
Don't be afraid to cut or filter perception of the battle (via weather moves, sensory disruption, etc) for narrowing the narration and for enhancing the drama factor. There's no more than a couple of words needed to expound on a Manectric trying to get past the opponent Quilava's Smokescreen, but the fact that you won't have to allows the reader to draw conclusions about what is going on without you having to spoonfeed them.
tl;dr: you just set up an arena full of narrative tools. Use them for your advantage.
