From my limited playing experience: if an architect was of the mind to use the natural run-off method, the bits of pipes and drains he still required only improved the situation; while if an architect was of the mind to deal with water primarily with pipes and drains, no amount of pipes and drains ever worked out all that well.
I don't think the ODGs were geniuses in regards to the natural run-off method; drainage on their courses was improved (then and over the years) with extra effort and with pipes and drains. I think modern architects threw the baby out with the bathwater and, push come to shove, opt first for more pipes and drains instead of making run-offs as central to their routings as 'strategy' and 'walkability' and 'aesthetics'.
I'd rather have a drier walk than a shorter walk, and I'd rather have a drier/faster turf dictate angles and shot selection than I would an architect design them.
The first few paragraphs are pretty spot on. Every catch basin provides potential for a little wet area, if it is blocked with leaves, or even not level, too small, etc. The do cause extra maintenance (and more so, using undersized and too flat pipes that don't flow well enough to self cleanse themselves.) Pete Dye, among others has lamented his "catch basin every 80 ft (4 sticks of drain pipe) method at some Florida courses.
It really works better to route around poor areas (not always possible, especially in housing where the golf course does tend to get the lower lying land) and use drains to pick up the off site water before it reaches critical golf areas, rather than put the catch basins in the fairways.
On the other hand, adding basins can help control flow which can greatly assist grow in. Some contractors add catch basins every 250-300 feet if they are responsible for growing a course in. I have plenty of pictures of washed out long swales from grow ins over the years that would have been helped had the water been limited in how big an area drains. Eventually (and it really is about 300 feet or less) your desired "sheet flow" turns into concentrated flow, which can be erosive.
So, it is a balance, and basically, you do what you gotta do, striving to put in just the right amount of pipe and basins for the site. In general, I have found that the most efficient designs spend about the same amount for earth moving as drainage.
Back to the original post, in a restoration situation, I would have actually favored adding small basins in low areas rather than changing Colt shaping, since once that is gone, its gone. The basins could be small, as I doubt the watershed areas would be big.
And lastly, to TD, years ago I came to the conclusion that using subsurface or French drains to solve surface drainage problems didn't work as well as basins. Those tiles clog and need to be dug up and rebuilt as you found out. Basins usually don't lose efficiency over the years, although on golf courses, they tend to be sized too small, and pipes tend to be undersized as well, leaving standing water around basins, which eventually hurts turf quality.
As Peter notes, the old guys weren't geniuses, although they understood the principles. Old clay or concrete tiles were heavy and hard to work with, and very expensive. Corrugated Metal was easier, but had corrosion problems. The advent of the HDPE pipe in the 80's (4" was earlier, but the larger sized kept getting added as they became accepted) made installation of drain pipes easier, cheaper, and faster.
So, naturally, architects were more in favor of using them, so construction technology again (like bulldozers that weren't available in the Golden Age) did change the philosophy of drainage somewhat in favor of more pipe and less earthmoving. Yes, some architects used it as a way to shape everywhere, knowing if they created a hole they could drain it. Most, I think, were more restrained.
As to using golf courses for retention, it was pretty common and probably still will be. The developer has to give up land for the detention basins. If it can double dip as a golf course, the actual cost of retention goes way down. It could also double as park or nature area, as well, though. If they are clever, though, they got the golf course to agree to build them in as part of their construction cost, making them essentially free for the land donation.