> a middling tennis player...
If you're referring to the 2006 NYT piece on Roger Federer, I think you're not supporting the "quite mundane" characterization
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20fed...
If you're referring to the 2006 NYT piece on Roger Federer, I think you're not supporting the "quite mundane" characterization
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20fed...
Michael Joyce's highest ranking was 64.
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.
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?