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

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.

Yes, it would be good to see next to PB after marathon #3 a runners age when he run that marathon, and then age when he set his PB.

Luke seems being on a younger side.

Plus, I think it's beneficial for him to already go through little life crisis (after NY) and put things into perspective. Family is good distraction too—he doesn't have to stress about running all day, but put his head to rest.

Luke reminds me of a Polish runner, Henryk Szost, who is nearly as tall as Luke. Henryk run 2:07:49, after going 2:15, 2:10, 2:09—here you can see his progression:

Hope Luke does that too.

Letsrun, your premise is dumb. Obviously luke was (over)trained terribly for his New York bomb and there is zero reason to think that a bad race there will limit his potential going forward.

Look at these first three marathons:

74/12 nt dnf Peach Bowl Atlanta, GA

75/12 2:36:19 19th Peach Bowl Atlanta, GA

76/03 2:37:30 7th Florida Relays Gainseville, FL

No way that guy ever breaks 2:10, right? Well, he did.

Luke reminds me a bit of Alan Culpepper. Both are tall and very smooth runners. Culpepper never ran faster than his 2:09 debut in Chicago. But he did not have that many opportunities to run faster than that. His 2004 Olympic Marathon performance would probably translate to a 2:08 on a fast course in good weather. I think Luke should be able to get down to 2:08. In Chicago he split 30k at 14:55 while trying to stay with the big surge. He was able to stay on pace for the last 7k while many crashed and burned and jogged it in. Many of the other US runners who hit 2:10-11 and never did better got their marks in time trial efforts where they were never really in touch with the leaders.

Way to commit to a prediction, Mr Waffler.

Heyo wrote:

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

I like this thread as it's an interesting one.

I agree with you. He is a talent and the 'sky is the limit'. But history has shown us that sky limit for an American born athlete is 2:06:17 and for most it's 2:08-2:09. Do you really think he's the same talent as Ritz??

I think Puskedra has the engine for the marathon but I am worried he's so freaking big. An interesting concept is what was his 2:10 in Chicago worth? Could one say 2:08 since it was windy or was it just a 2:10 as he had a great group to run with throughout.

I'll put up $10,000 to your $1,000 he never breaks 2:06.00.

rojo wrote:

...

I'll put up $10,000 to your $1,000 he never breaks 2:06.00.

I am of the mind that he has now run his best race. It's almost a curse that he got "so close" to sub 2:10. That means he will be pushing for it every day in training, every marathon from here on out. It's the pressure that'll do him in.

Why did he run so well at Chicago? No one, including him, thought he was going to run as fast as he did. There was no pressure.

oh please wrote:

rojo wrote:

...

I'll put up $10,000 to your $1,000 he never breaks 2:06.00.

I am of the mind that he has now run his best race. It's almost a curse that he got "so close" to sub 2:10. That means he will be pushing for it every day in training, every marathon from here on out. It's the pressure that'll do him in.

Why did he run so well at Chicago? No one, including him, thought he was going to run as fast as he did. There was no pressure.

And before someone brings up Ritz, who ran 2:10 flat early on, there is a big difference (pun intended) between Ritz and Puskedra. Size and talent level. Ritz went on to run 12:56 and 60 flat in a WC race before finally getting a sub 2:08.

never worn a singlet wrote:

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.

hahahahahaha

2:10 mighto be the ultimate goal of any professional AMERICAN marathoner.

My guess is 2:09:45

Reminderofthings wrote:

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.

Exactly!^ Obviously some people cannot handle that amount of mileage, he can't bank off of it, and in my opinion I think is a good thing! He will less likely to be injury proned and less likely to overcompensate and over train! I understand that I cannot deal with anything over 40 miles, I am not a high mileage guy myself and I bank off of the low mileage which I think is a blessing in disguise.

Damn plygamist trolls from Utah can go to hell.

Plyg wrote:

Damn plygamist trolls from Utah can go to hell.

Plygamy is a biotch, man.

Luke did 160-170 with 28 @ 5:40 pace in training for New York, where he was sick or injured, and probably stale.

I'd like to see what he did with Powell. As well, he would have gained strength after recovering from the first cycle.

2:07.13

In the year 2018

jlj;lkhgsawatrfg wrote:

We see no name guys with minimal talent like Matt Llano, Nick Arciniaga, etc running respectable marks.. (so) 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.

Let's look at this objectively, using Llano as the comparison stick.

Puskedra's track pb is 13:31 for 5000. Llano's is 14:00. A difference of 9.3 seconds per mile.

Puskedra's track pb is 17:51 for 10,000. Llano's track pb is 28:43 for 10,000. A difference of 8.4 seconds per mile.

I think the 10,000 is a better indicator for the marathon.

If Puskedra ends up being 8.4 seconds per mile better than Llano at the marathon, what do we get? 3:39 for the full marathon.

Llano's marathon pb is 2:12:28. 2:12:28-3:39 - 2:08:49.

2:08 high is a very good time for an American and incredibly good time for a 27:51 guy (look at McMillan or Jk's chart as well).

2:06-7 is possible but not backed up the numbers. It's a pipe dream.

-Rojo

PS. For kicks, I did the same math comparing Hall's 13:16 5000 pb and Llano's 14:00 5000 PB. The time difference of 11.3 seconds per mile projects out to 6:11 for the full marathon. 2:12:28-6:11= 2:06:17.

What is Ryan Hall's marathon pb (non-wind aided)? 2:06:17.

THAT"S FREAKY. MAN I AM GENIUS.

Benji durden quotation machine wrote:

Letsrun, your premise is dumb. Obviously luke was (over)trained terribly for his New York bomb and there is zero reason to think that a bad race there will limit his potential going forward.

We never even mentioned his new york marathon or said it had anything to limit his potential going forward. We simply looked at how much top runners normally improve after marathon #3. This was marathon #3 (albeit with a limited buildup, but hey the limited buildup may have helped him).

Carlos Lopes

10/24/82 NY DNF

4/9/83 Rotterdam 2:08:39 2nd

4/18/84 Rotterdam DNF

8/12/84 LAOG 2:09:21 1st

10/21/84 Chicago 2;09:06 2nd

5/20/85 Rotterdam 2:07:12WR 1st

2/9/90 Tokyo DNF

Steve Jones

DNF

Chicago

20 Oct 83

2:08:05

1

Chicago. World record

21 Oct 84

2:08:16

1

London

21 Apr 85

2:07:13

1

Chicago. UK Record

20 Oct 85

At his age, he might be the perfect guy to continue on a yearly model where he races a track season through Spring and Summer, then convert over to a marathon buildup in August for a Fall marathon. He'd be able to focus on keeping up his track speed, while at the same time not grow stale from just being on the fixed "2 marathon a year" thing that a lot of other elites do. One marathon a year and a 3-4 month track schedule from April-July could be the perfect recipe for him over the next few years. I think he could get down into the 2:08 range at some point.