[rcme]

I was talking about the essay "Tennis Player Michael Joyce's Professional Artistry as a Paradigm of Certain Stuff about Choice, Freedom, Discipline, Joy, Grotesquerie, and Human Completeness"

Michael Joyce's highest ranking was 64.

[Beldin]

64 in what? 64th worldwide is obviously not a middling player; 64th of his local club probably falls shy of that lofty moniker.

Perhaps you meant "middling professional player"? Because I don't think there's enough money to be made to pay for expenses and support you year-round if you do not crack the top-100.

[rcme]

You should read the essay, I think you’d like it. Your comment strikes the heart of the matter.

Yes, Michael Joyce was the 64th best in the world. He’s reached a level of tennis that almost every other player in the world can only dream of. Joyce’s ability to play tennis was rivaled only by a small handful of people in the entire world. And yet… not many will ever hear of Michael Joyce. He won’t be able to earn a sustainable wage playing the game. Ultimately, he might be even worse off than the 64th best player at a local club. So what’s the point? Why does Joyce do it?