 None of those aircraft were built for a similar role as the F-4 and neither were they similar in capability.  The MiG-19 was a development of the MiG-17, which was itself a development of the MiG-15 of the Korean War.  The MiG-21 was an interceptor and as such was fast but with limited range and armament and was not the quick-turning dogfighting machine that the MiG-19 and its predecessors were.  The F-8 was a pure dogfighter, primarily armed with guns although Sidewinders could also be carried.  The F-4 was designed as neither a dogfighter, an interceptor or a fighter-bomber.  It was a long-range fleet escort fighter designed to fight beyond visual range.  It had a high thrust-to-weight ratio for the day but also, unfortunately, high wing loading.  Together these qualities meant that an F-4 pilot that tried to engage a lighter dogfighter like a MiG-17 or MiG-19 in a primarily horizontal turning fight would find himself losing fairly quickly, but an experience pilot that knew how to use the F-4's superior thrust-to-weight ratio to fight in the vertical and to conserve the fighter's energy by never allowing himself to be both low and slow, would in the end probably prevail over the lighter opponent.  The F-4 had range, speed, high energy and firepower due to its large missile load when compared to its common enemies.  For a good analog, compare the F-4 to the P-47 Thunderbolt being faced by lighter, quicker-turning aircraft; a Thunderbolt pilot that tried to turn with his opponent would quickly be bailing out, but a P-47 pilot that used his aircraft's superior diving, climbing and rolling performance to his advantage would often win.  :: So no, none of the aircraft you mentioned are really comparable.  Nothing of the day really was, because the Phantom set the mold for the air superiority fighter of the future.  It influenced the design of the Soviet MiG-23 and (while wing loading was greatly reduced) the relatively large, high-thrust fighter has been the template ever since the F-4.     