Originally Answered: Which fans in wrestling are more passionate fans: "marks", "smart marks", or "smarks"?
A "mark" is a wrestling fan. Period. But taking it in the context I believe you mean, a "mark" is a fan who just watches the shows and has no interest in becoming "smart" (to the business).
A "smart mark" is a fan who is interested in knowing how the business works, beyond just what we see on TV.
A "smark" is a self-important internet critic, most of which take a very condescending and sarcastic view on pro wrestling and it's fans. Their reviews (of shows, wrestlers, angles, etc) are almost always VERY negative. They seem to get no enjoyment from pro wrestling whatsoever beyond posting their negative and condescending comments on the internet.
To answer your question, "marks" are the more passionate. They "get it" (what the business really is, and what it tries to do); "smarks" don't. "Marks" are willing participants in the whole charade. People who watch Hollywood movies know those movies are all fake, but they play along anyway. So do "marks". Just like people who watch movies, "marks" suspend their disbelief and react emotionally with their hearts to what occurs in front of them. They allow themselves to be drawn into the drama and action; they react instinctively and their emotions are genuine. Much like a child watching a scary movie as opposed to a jaded teenager who has "seen it all" and doesn't allow himself to be scared by a movie anymore. "Marks" get more out of pro wrestling than the so-called "smart" fans do because they allow the performers to do their jobs without second-guessing them or finding fault with the things they do.
A scenario as an example: after months of speculation, TNA shocks the world by revealing Jeff Hardy as the "crown jewel" of their evil Immortal faction.
"Marks" ARE shocked. The popular "good guy" Hardy is now a dark and twisted "bad guy" who cheats, uses weapons, injures the "good guys", and has "henchmen" to do most of his dirty work. "Marks" are angry and/or sad that Jeff turned his back on them. They want answers, "WHY, Jeff?". AND they hold out hope that Jeff will soon "see the light" and come back to the "good" side.
"Smart marks" analyze the "logic" of this drastic heel-turn. TNA took a huge risk in taking one of the most popular faces in the business and turning him heel "Smart marks" debate how effective this decision (turning Hardy heel) is, whether or not it has "improved" TNA overall, and whether or not it will be good for TNA in the long run.
"Smarks" claim, "pffft, I saw it coming 5 years ago and I knew it would happen. Big deal, Hardy sucks anyway". They sneer at TNA for not being "original" and continue to criticize every single decision TNA makes. "Smarks" continue to hang out at spoiler/rumor sites and base their "opinions" on the business by what those sites SAY will happen.
BQ: In the late 60's/early 70's. Pro wrestling was real then. By that I mean, kayfabe was very much intact, the business guarded itself religiously, there was no internet, there were no "smarks", and there were no "dirt sheets" revealing "backstage" stuff (or claiming to). Wrestlers didn't appear on any other TV show out-of-character, they were in-character wherever fans might be, they didn't reveal "secrets", they didn't use "insider" terms around fans or the media, and they didn't write "tell all" books. The business and everybody inside it presented wrestling as completely real. Without all the overwhelming negativity and "insider" crap that's all over the internet and etched into today's fans' brains, AND the fact that we only saw a 60-90 minute wrestling show on TV once a week, AND kayfabe being such a strong brick wall, it was very easy to believe it was all real. Wrestlers could take a punch to the face because they were tougher than "normal" men (we didn't have all those ridiculous and dangerous flying stunts today's wrestlers do); at least that's the conclusion you drew based on how the wrestlers presented themselves. Wrestlers were big, strong, tough men. They were believable. Unlike a large portion of today's muscleheaded actors who are passed off as pro wrestlers.
When I was 10-12 years old in the late 60's pro wrestling was as real (to me) as the sun coming up every morning. My parents instilled in me (and my brother and sister) a strong sense of "right and wrong", so when I saw a bad guy breaking the rules I was morally outraged and offended and I wanted the good guy (we didn't call them heels and faces in those days) to get even. We didn't chuckle over the bad guy screwing over the good guy like today's fans do. We took everything at face value, that is, the way the wrestlers intended it. And I was as passionate as anybody in my reactions and feelings.