LetsRun, What say you? What will Luke Puskedra's ultimate marathon PB be?

I'll get the ball rolling.

2:10:24 is my pick.

not david epstein wrote:

I'll get the ball rolling.

2:10:24 is my pick.

Nah. Luke'll run 2:08-low or better at some point.

He's still very young, and didn't train very hard in the last year.

Still trying to figure out how to train most effectively, and maybe that'll lead to some more experimentation, and some major ups and downs, but it's very likely he'll eventually run a lot faster than this, as long as he can stay healthy.

I wouldn't be shocked if it took a while, and he had some bad races in-between --or even if he went backwards at Trials-- but sooner or later, he'll go way under 2:10.

This race wasn't a fluke; it was just the first time things clicked for him in a marathon. It'll happen again, and he'll be in a lot better shape when it does.

I wish him luck. I'd love to see it.

I am more concerned that his PRs at shorter distances do not predict much better. Only his half-marathon PR of 1:01:36 is superior on the McMillan calculator to his 2:10:24 -- it suggests 2:09:38.

I think he can go somewhere like 2:08 mid -- 2:09 mid. or maybe he could be a stunner and go even faster

I guess only time will tell

2:02:21 WR in the greatest American run ever

Is this a joke? Puskedra is very talented. I wouldn't call this his third marathon. His first one was an absolute farce that he obviously wasn't prepared for. He also has a lot more room for improvement than these other older marathoners.

The one problem is that he is probably most suited to half and 10k more though. The guy is simply too big. Wind will catch him like a sail. Biomechanically suited to other things. He could probably make more money. Race more often and likely win more often too. I'd bet on him going sub 60 faster than him going sub 2:09

2:09:18, Chicago 2017, for 8th place, 2nd American.

His 2:10 in windy Chicago was worth a 2:08 (in a race where the winners run 2:08. He'd run 2:09 at Berlin or London where he is solo for the last 10 Miles).

That said, the Marathon is hard to progress in. If he is somebody who races well, he'll run more NY and Boston marathons, and won't get the many opportunities it takes to land one good combination of conditions for a good time.

You asked the wrong question. Instead, try: In what marathon race is an elite performer most likely to set his/her PR?

First? Second? Third? Fourth and Beyond?

I have no idea the answer. But I think it will be more illuminating than the question you asked.

I think he's good for 2:08. He's going to break 2:10. That has to be the ultimate goal of any professional marathoner.

A post for Puskedera is more bullshit from Salt Lake City LDS community?

are you kidding? your staffer didn't come up with that. many of us here, including myself posted well done, but it's not like he's going to break 2:08. your staffer? please letsrun, wake up.

LetsRun.com wrote:

He's run 2:10:24 in only his third career marathon. How much faster will he get?

http://www.letsrun.com/?p=92817

We take a look to see how much marathoners normally improve.

Post your thoughts below.

NYCMaster wrote:

I am more concerned that his PRs at shorter distances do not predict much better. Only his half-marathon PR of 1:01:36 is superior on the McMillan calculator to his 2:10:24 -- it suggests 2:09:38.

McMillan calculator says that Dick Beardsley was a 2:17 marathoner and Bill Rodgers was a 2:11 marathoner based on 10k PRs.

how many ran their third marathon as young as he is, though?

kid was 5th at ncaa cross at 18. have a hard time not believing the sky is the limit once he's settled into a program that works for him.

There are to many variables with Luke to limit him according to stats as old as 10 years, I'll be shocked if he stays HEALTHY and focused the next 5-6 years and he never runs sub 2:09!

The immediate problem is that the trials and Olympics won't be great PR environments. So you're looking at his next year of marathoning being difficult on PRs. Then who is to say how motivated he'll be after the Olympics? I think that's his biggest limiting factor. If he leaves the Olympics excited to train at the marathon for another 4 years for the next cycle, then it's very likely he could improve his PR a bit.

We see no name guys with minimal talent like Matt Llano, Nick Arciniaga, etc running respectable marks. I understand Cabada was a big time talent coming out of HS and hasn't particularly nailed the marathon yet but I think Puskedra is a massive talent that has 2:06-2:07 capabilities. Obviously everything has to go perfectly right on that day but if the stars align, I think he could potentially see the AR in his future.

He is only 25, thus has his prime years ahead of him. Eventually sub 2:06 and will beat Rupp every time they compete (if Rupp ever moves up to the marathon).

I agree with above that Puskedra is a massive talent (duh), but it needs to be repeated- outside of an off day sophomore year (where he was still 21st), Luke was 5th, 3rd and 6th at NCAA's in XC. That is big time.

I say he runs 2:07.xx, but it will take a while.

What scares me the most is him talking about the speedwork and limited buildup he did to Chicago. Clearly it worked, but somewhere in there those 160 mile weeks he mentioned he was running with Alberto were at work.

The way he is discussing his training/approach to the marathon points to him not running that kind of mileage again, which could be a problem.