And why would you want Spider-Man to be anything like Batman anyhow? That's ridiculous. Batman's Batman. Spider-Man's Spider-Man.
One is a creature of the night. The other is your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man.
Despite their different approaches, neither one is going to effectively deal with their villain problem as long as their publishing existence is ongoing.
Having villains running around is what keeps them both in business, after all.
Spider-Man's goals aren't quite as extreme. From the beginning, he seeks to stop the kind of crime that killed his Uncle Ben. That crime is not like Ultron and Thanos. He deals primarily with other people and there are things you can do to deal with those people. Peter, as smart as he is, doesn't know how to deal with people in an effective way. He opts for the worst possible approach to dealing with these people. The Avengers may stave off Ultron and Thanos, but they rarely ever make them stronger as a result. Spider-Man's methods embolden his enemies, give them a common threat, and annoy them to a point where they'll be that much more determined. So by that logic, Spider-Man is indeed more incompetent than the Avengers.
Secondly, you REALLY don't seem to get Spider-Man. If you think Spidey annoying his enemies is a problem, you aren't really with the spirit of the book. Spidey is the Bugs Bunny of superheroes. Annoying his opponents is as much a part of his crime-fighting arsenal as webbing or wall-crawling.
But Batman is a GREATER failure, due to his motivation. Batman is driven by vengeance over the loss of his parents, Spider is driven by guilt. Therefore, to satisfy his motive, Spidey only has to SAVE lives. Batman, on the other hand, must PUNISH criminals. However, due to his code of "no killing" Batman cannot ever truly and finally punish these foes. Thus, he cannot ever truly accomplish his goal. His villains will eventually escape, recruit more henchmen, and the endless cycle of crime in Gotham continues. Ultimately, if vengeance upon the criminal underworld is your M.O. then the Punisher's methodology is what the vigilante should adopt.
"The White Queen welcomes you, TO DIE!"
You're missing the point. So what about Batman being incompetent for not effectively dealing with The Joker, Riddler, Two-Face, Penguin etc? So what about Capt America being incompetent for not dealing with The Red Skull? Iron Man being incompetent for not dealing with The Mandarin or Whiplash? Boy, Superman must be really incompetent for never effectively dealing with Lex Luthor and Brainiac!
You wanna go "street level" like Spidey? OK. I guess Daredevil is incompetent for not dealing with The Kingpin or Bullseye then. Your argument about Spidey "emboldening" them holds little water; wise cracks or not the theory that if there was no Batman, there would be no Joker has been around forever regardless of the scale of hero and villain.
I miss Kevin Nichols. Not as much as bacon, but still...
You people bringing up other heroes in comparison are kinda proving the tc right and being kinda self conscious about how spidermans hero saving methods are short sighted and flawed. Compare that to Superman, Or Green Lanterns and you see where spidey is faulty in his methods, even deadpool is more competant in his practical hindsight when he wants to be.
Obviously, Spider-Man cannot accomplish things in the exact same manner as Superman or Green Lantern, because in both cases, these characters completely dwarf Spidey in their superhuman abilities. Superman can do practically anything, and Green Lantern has a magical dues ex machina around his finger. If anything, these characters aren't "living up to their potential," with that sheer amount of firepower at their fingertips, crime should be virtually non-existent in the DC Universe.
"The White Queen welcomes you, TO DIE!"
Well I don't think I'm going to convince anyone of my sentiment for now. But I think the notion that I just don't "get" Spider-Man is a hallow excuse. I get that heroes can't be too good at their jobs. I actually did another blog post about that, but I singled Spider-Man out because he checks all the wrong boxes in terms of how he goes about his goal. Now I'm not going to compare him to Batman or Superman anymore. I think it's unfair to compare the two because that's just going to turn the discussion into an argument about Batman. I'd rather not have Batman derail this discussion. He does that enough in the Superman forum.
With Spider-Man, I think the problem is that he's never stopped to actually formulate a plan for how he'll make New York better so that people like his Uncle Ben don't die needlessly. He does what he does out of guilt. I understand that. That's a core component to his character and that shouldn't change. But is what he does actually making a difference in the grand scheme of things? Yeah, it works in the short-term, but is New York better off when criminals like Kingpin, Doc Ock, Shocker, and Vulture all have a common enemy to rally around? The fact that he's never seriously considered revising his tactics just makes him a hypocrite because it's so irresponsible. If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten. I can totally understand why Peter chose his current tactics at a young age. He got his powers as a teenager. Naturally, he's going to slip up a few times. But he's an adult now. For him to not update his methods or try something different...there's just no excuse for that. I can't see that as anything other than incompetent and irresponsible.
It is definitely food for thought, and while the point can be made that someone like Otto Octavius was a far more effective crime-fighter than Peter Parker was or is, Otto's methods were ultimately as counterproductive as Peter's. Peter aggravated his enemies, but the cruelty and viciousness with which Otto dealt with those same enemies didn't just inspire fear; in time, it inspired hate and even moral revulsion, that compared to them, the so-called "hero" was far more of a monster than they ever could be, and that led to his downfall as the not-quite-Superior Spider-Man.
Going back to Peter's methodology and how flawed it is in regards to the goals he repeatedly states he wants to accomplish, I'd say the bright costume and constant quips and jokes actually do serve a purpose. A lot of the villains or criminals Peter faces off against are the kind of people who'd strike out at anyone in their path, with no regard for consequences or casualties or collateral damage because they just don't give a f*** about other human beings. Spider-Man "giving them a target" actually makes a degree of sense in regards to saving lives because the villains or criminals that are focused on taking him out are focusing on him and not randomly lashing out at anyone else in their way, they're not going after innocent bystanders just to amuse themselves. He's a target, he's a showboat, he draws their attention so that their attention will be off innocent people and those people can therefore get to safety more easily.
As for "Parker Blowback," that's true to an extent, but then damn near every long-lasting superhero has developed many bad cases of blowback because their enemies are often the type of people who feel entitled to do and get whatever they want, and they'll make anybody who gets in the way of that pay, even if it means going through perfectly innocent and uninvolved people, whether unconnected bystanders or people emotionally closer to the hero, to get that payback. In the first Spider-Man: Homecoming trailer, Vulture makes himself pretty explicit when he tells Spider-Man that if Spider-Man gets in his way, he'll not only kill Spidey, he'll also kill everyone Spidey loves or cares about. That's the type of enemy superheroes, specifically Spider-Man, end up dealing with, the kind of people who don't see other people as people, but as potential resources or tools or obstacles --- resources or tools to be disposed of when their usefulness is outlived, obstacles to be removed --- and they have no remorse for the lives they take or ruin in the process of getting what they want. Simply choosing to oppose such people makes someone a target, and that ultimately isn't on the person opposing those people as it is on those people themselves for their sick sense of entitlement and their apparent belief that nobody else's rights or needs matter compared to their own. That's not to say Spider-Man couldn't do things better or more efficiently, especially with the amount of experience and knowledge he should have accrued in a decade-plus span of crime-fighting, but in the end, it's the villains and criminals who choose to act with no care or regard for the lives and rights of anyone besides themselves that are to blame for whatever innocent casualties get racked up by their actions, not by Spider-Man's attempts to stop them from hurting or killing (more) innocent people.
The spider is always on the hunt.
Spider-Man is a character with a perpetual thumb up his behind not taking advantage of his poyential because hes written lazily.
Plenty of others have pointed out the flaw with the Batman's better because he scares his enemies argument- there's no evidence from the text that this was actually effective. The main knocks about Spider-Man not being effective are mainly about the requirements of serial fiction, where the hero can't resolve all of his problems, and the popular bad guys keep returning.
An added factor is that Peter hadn't really had the resources to try to change the world until relatively recently. He had a middle class income and a secret identity to preserve which limited what he could do in terms of bringing the fight to his enemies.
What do you want him to do to prevent people like Vulture, Shocker, and Dr. Octopus from coming back again and again? Shoot them in the head? Lock them up forever in his secret underground jail? Manufacture Spider-robots and have them patrol the city as his own personal army?
With Spider-Man, I think the problem is that he's never stopped to actually formulate a plan for how he'll make New York better so that people like his Uncle Ben don't die needlessly.
Spider-man isn't looking to be some great world changer or leader. He's not trying to change how the game is played. He's just trying to do his part and help out the best he can. He doesn't have the ego to think he should be the one to change everything.