6 ms·

> 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 h

by moioci 4y ago

> 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/20federer.html?unlocked_article_code=iF0rsrBJyMT1M1OSrCCxn8Ms9LFcXOkJKZp1rvuzAl_T_c2eL6JPbm5UTha_fWOTO-hB-HonxXL5a6OC9s82kQady9bcB6-B4CvYo9W1ZEIyrBm-lafxb9QlAeUkL6AYhDyFjp9WTCKbvDPX4scnduUv2gOOzUHCWqmt-jJHLG4E-YfwgyD4BCcvpvNGTn-L8HCPuaZRKAHWHNJrJ0uO_aCvCVOyghzoWiFytUqGuv3If91RI0jkJmTqC-HzBgx5nyAkZ5QjY8fJ-6b6JJYJ7GR6WK6rpX7QTDddfH1qpcPw3Z2Gadk_eXY7k_mMKw65GubaNBl3yyBcpNDO2i9l&smid=share-url https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20fed...

rcme 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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?

by moioci 4y ago

rcme 4y ago

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 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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?