This is news today? I recall reading this theory in 1958.
Try reading the story before commenting
Then why did you make the remark about the original theory? The article makes no claim that the theory is new, and in fact it says the opposite, that it is "the most commonly invoked explanation for lunar formation". What is new is the two recent studies mentioned.
"I, Lucian, wrote this, I who am skilled in what is old and foolish; For what men think wise is foolish. So then nothing that the mind of man can conceive is certain; What you admire, seems ridiculous to others." - St. Lucian of Antioch