>>11188825I think this particular black hole is considered huge according to the available matter around it and its theorised formation method, not relative to other black holes. The ones in the centre of spiral galaxies are called supermassive for a reason.
I think the 'spectacular' thing about this one isn't its absolute properties, but it's size relative to its location and surrounding star structures. Its possibly unusual to have a black hole of this size next only to a small star but them having a near perfect circular co-orbit. It means the star has been there for a long time instead of being recently captured (the orbit would be elliptic) so how exactly did that black hole form and leave it intact? It had to be a weird imploding supernova of an older, larger dying star.
I don't know much about star formation models, but they aren't fully understood because they are theoretical, based on observing different stars at different ages. We've barely witnessed non solar stellar behaviour because of the huge timespans. We have data from supernovae and hypernovae through radiation but star system evolution is still open to interpretation.
Take the example of our Solar system, where you have different theories on the formation of planets and moons. Some feature primordial dust clouds where other feature collisions. Some include theories on the asteroid ring formation.
This black hole news isn't very special but it is still interesting because its new data about celestial body behaviour.
