I think this discussion lacks perpective on construction technology as part of the decisions. When Mac was building golf courses, earthmoving was expensive, and tree planting was not, albeit they probably planted a lot of small trees and waned to wait. No one really cared, as they probably didn't have lots of options. In addition, french drains were well established as a drainage method. Pipes and catch basins, not so much.
Even Pine Tree falls in that category - it had trees for interest, and/or planted them.
Go to Newton, KS, where I had to build a course on a flat site with few trees. It not only had to drain (and with a water table just 3' below the surface) but I had to build some interest in, add detention ponds for non golf reasons, and generally believed what the feasibility study said - there are LOTS of public options around Wichita, KS and they are cheaper than you will likely be and closer to town in an era of newly priced $3-4 Gal gas. If you want players to pass up all those other options and spend more and more gas go come play, you gotta give them something.
At the present time, earthmoving is cheaper than adding trees, and I had to move a lot of it anyway for detention. Seeding contrasting native grasses is cheaper than adding trees. I need visual appeal NOW, and not ten years from now. Earthmoving to create unique holes seemed a logical conclusion under my circumstances, just as tree planting gave MAC and others the best bang for the buck for their owners in their day.
It is hard to judge modern courses vs older ones, both because of mature trees giving interest, and the relative ease of different types of construction by era.