Matt,
Redundant catch basins? Did they put 2 of them in each low spot?
As to fun, yes, that should probably be the design criteria for 99% of courses that get built. While that definition will vary from golfer to golfer, I always shot for a course that was attractive to the eye (a definition that can also vary) and where the bogey player could shoot about his/her average score consistently.
There is that kind of design, and then the technical aspects that support the design. I can't comment on what was necessary on that site, and the "right amount" of drainage varies tremendously. I hate to say it, but if that shaper so casually commented on the drainage design of a course he played once, he may have a bias towards no catch basins but it doesn't mean his opinion governs.
If it was a flat site, then it is easier to run pipe at grades under 1% typically than it is to move water via grading the surface to the required 2-3% minimum. If it was a gently rolling site, my take would be to put basins only to stop water from running a long way down or crossing over greens, tees, and fw, knowing how hard those are to grow in, among other things. I remember as a teen an article that called out "long soggy swales" as a mark of amateur or bad design, and that stuck with me. Moreover, it is still true in most cases. (not every course gets built in sandy soils)
Some designers/builders try to limit drainage runs to about 200-250 feet, which is about how long it takes flowing water to concentrate and create gullies. There are actually formulas to figure it out based on slope, soils, etc., and it would probably be best design practice to know that formula......but even as geeky as I was on drainage, I never actually did understand it and went by feel and experience.
Prior to about 1985, drainage budgets might have been minimal, but then the super added drainage every year. When budgets got bigger, and plastic pipe was cheaper and easier to install over concrete or CMP, most of us figured it was cheaper to just put as much as we could in right up front. Of course, the super still added drainage every year, but hopefully it was less. Too often, it isn't done as well as it could have been done in original construction.
More drainage, in general, may make course ops and revenue streams better, even though each CB has potential to be a small maintenance problem.
And yes, I understand that many, including Pete Dye who did work on a lot of flat sites moved towards more drainage to allow them to build whatever they wanted rather than follow the land. I rarely got to that point, and it is usually easy for me to know when the philosophy is "anything goes" vs "Use when needed." As pointed out earlier, I can't gauge the situation you saw without seeing it.